Ji Jong-Hun, Shafi Mohamed, Kim Weon-Yoo, Kim Young-Yul
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Daejon St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea.
Indian J Orthop. 2010 Jul;44(3):308-13. doi: 10.4103/0019-5413.65160.
There has been a recent interest in the double row repair method for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair following favourable biomechanical results reported by some studies. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical results of arthroscopic single row and double row repair methods in the full-thickness rotator cuff tears.
22 patients of arthroscopic single row repair (group I) and 25 patients who underwent double row repair (group II) from March 2003 to March 2005 were retrospectively evaluated and compared for the clinical outcomes. The mean age was 58 years and 56 years respectively for group I and II. The average follow-up in the two groups was 24 months. The evaluation was done by using the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) rating scale and the shoulder index of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES).
In Group I, the mean ASES score increased from 30.48 to 87.40 and the mean ASES score increased from 32.00 to 91.45 in the Group II. The mean UCLA score increased from the preoperative 12.23 to 30.82 in Group I and from 12.20 to 32.40 in Group II. Each method has shown no statistical clinical differences between two methods, but based on the sub scores of UCLA score, the double row repair method yields better results for the strength, and it gives more satisfaction to the patients than the single row repair method.
Comparing the two methods, double row repair group showed better clinical results in recovering strength and gave more satisfaction to the patients but no statistical clinical difference was found between 2 methods.
近期，一些研究报道了双排修复法在关节镜下肩袖修复中的良好生物力学结果，引发了人们对该方法的兴趣。本研究旨在比较关节镜下单排和双排修复法治疗全层肩袖撕裂的临床效果。
回顾性评估并比较2003年3月至2005年3月间接受关节镜下单排修复的22例患者（I组）和接受双排修复的25例患者（II组）的临床结局。I组和II组的平均年龄分别为58岁和56岁。两组的平均随访时间为24个月。采用加州大学洛杉矶分校（UCLA）评分量表和美国肩肘外科医师协会（ASES）的肩部指数进行评估。
I组的平均ASES评分从30.48提高到87.40，II组的平均ASES评分从32.00提高到91.45。I组的平均UCLA评分从术前的12.23提高到30.82，II组从12.20提高到32.40。两种方法在临床统计学上无差异，但基于UCLA评分的子分数，双排修复法在恢复力量方面效果更好，患者满意度也高于单排修复法。
比较两种方法，双排修复组在恢复力量方面临床效果更好，患者满意度更高，但两种方法在临床统计学上无差异。
