National Yang-Ming University School of Medicine, Taipei, Taiwan.
Arthroscopy. 2012 Jan;28(1):16-24. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2011.07.003. Epub 2011 Oct 7.
The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and imaging outcomes of single-row and double-row suture anchor fixation in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with emphasis on analysis of the effect of various tear size on repair integrity.
Fifty-three patents were randomized to either single-row or double-row rotator cuff repair at the time of surgical intervention. The clinical results were evaluated by applying the UCLA score and the ASES index and assessing muscle strength in abduction and external rotation with a minimum 2-year follow-up. The postoperative rotator cuff integrity was evaluated by magnetic resonance arthrography at 6-month and minimum 2-year follow-up.
We enrolled 27 patients in the single-row group and 26 patients in the double-row group. Statistically, the UCLA score; the ASES index; and muscle strength were significantly increased in both groups after surgery, but there was no significant difference between the 2 groups. At minimum 2-year follow-up, intact rotator cuffs were found in 17 patients in the single-row group and 20 in the double-row group, based on magnetic resonance arthrography results. Overall, there was no significant difference in postoperative structural integrity between the 2 groups at 6-month and 2-year follow-up. In patients with tear size larger than 3 cm, the muscle strength of the shoulder was significantly better in the double-row group. For the final imaging results, regardless of the tear size, there was no difference between the single-row and double-row groups.
Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with double-row fixation showed better shoulder strength in patients with larger tear size (>3 cm) in comparison with single-row fixation. However, the imaging results showed no significant difference in cuff integrity in both groups in patients with any tear size at 6-month and minimum 2-year follow-up.
Level II, lesser-quality randomized control trial.
本研究旨在比较关节镜下肩袖修复中单排和双排缝线锚钉固定的临床和影像学结果，重点分析不同撕裂大小对修复完整性的影响。
53 例患者在手术干预时随机分为单排或双排肩袖修复组。通过 UCLA 评分和 ASES 指数评估临床结果，并在至少 2 年的随访中评估外展和外旋时的肌肉力量。术后 6 个月和至少 2 年的随访采用磁共振关节造影评估肩袖的完整性。
我们纳入了 27 例单排组患者和 26 例双排组患者。统计分析显示，两组术后 UCLA 评分、ASES 指数和肌肉力量均显著提高，但两组间无显著差异。至少 2 年随访时，单排组 17 例、双排组 20 例磁共振关节造影显示肩袖完整。总体而言，两组术后 6 个月和 2 年随访时，结构完整性无显著差异。撕裂大小大于 3cm 的患者，双排组的肩部肌肉力量明显更好。对于最终的影像学结果，无论撕裂大小如何，单排组和双排组之间均无差异。
与单排固定相比，双排固定在撕裂较大（>3cm）的患者中具有更好的肩部力量，但在 6 个月和至少 2 年的随访中，无论撕裂大小如何，两组肩袖完整性的影像学结果均无显著差异。
II 级，质量较低的随机对照试验。
