Meta-analysis of Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes After Arthroscopic Single-Row Versus Double-Row Rotator Cuff Repair.

CONTEXT

Double-row rotator cuff repair methods have improved biomechanical performance when compared with single-row repairs.

OBJECTIVE

To review clinical outcomes of single-row versus double-row rotator cuff repair with the hypothesis that double-row rotator cuff repair will result in better clinical and radiographic outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

Published literature from January 1980 to April 2010. Key terms included rotator cuff, prospective studies, outcomes, and suture techniques.

STUDY SELECTION

The literature was systematically searched, and 5 level I and II studies were found comparing clinical outcomes of single-row and double-row rotator cuff repair. Coleman methodology scores were calculated for each article.

DATA EXTRACTION

Meta-analysis was performed, with treatment effect between single row and double row for clinical outcomes and with odds ratios for radiographic results. The sample size necessary to detect a given difference in clinical outcome between the 2 methods was calculated.

RESULTS

Three level I studies had Coleman scores of 80, 74, and 81, and two level II studies had scores of 78 and 73. There were 156 patients with single-row repairs and 147 patients with double-row repairs, both with an average follow-up of 23 months (range, 12-40 months). Double-row repairs resulted in a greater treatment effect for each validated outcome measure in 4 studies, but the differences were not clinically or statistically significant (range, 0.4-2.2 points; 95% confidence interval, -0.19, 4.68 points). Double-row repairs had better radiographic results, but the differences were also not statistically significant (P = 0.13). Two studies had adequate power to detect a 10-point difference between repair methods using the Constant score, and 1 study had power to detect a 5-point difference using the UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) score.

CONCLUSIONS

Double-row rotator cuff repair does not show a statistically significant improvement in clinical outcome or radiographic healing with short-term follow-up.