Rinaldi Vito Gaetano, Iacopo Sassoli, Coliva Federico, Favero Antongiulio, Bazzocchi Alberto, Miceli Marco, Di Paolo Stefano, Zaffagnini Stefano, Marcheggiani Muccioli Giulio Maria
II Clinica Ortopedica e Traumatologica-IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli Bologna Italy.
DIBINEM University of Bologna Bologna Italy.
J Exp Orthop. 2025 May 5;12(2):e70056. doi: 10.1002/jeo2.70056. eCollection 2025 Apr.
Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair has evolved, with suture anchor-based techniques like single-row (SR) and Double-row Suture-bridge (DRSB) gaining popularity. Despite improvements, early repair failures remain concerning, necessitating continued assessment of repair methods and devices' lasting impact. This study compares DRSB versus SR repairs at 24 months minimum follow-up, hypothesizing superior clinical outcomes and improved tendon healing with DRSB techniques.
Fifty patients with rotator cuff tears underwent either SR or DRSB repairs. Clinical evaluation included standardized scoring systems and strength testing. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) assessed tendon integrity. Partial cuff tears were evaluated according to Snyder's Southern California Orthopaedic Institute rotator cuff classification system, which classifies <2 cm lesions as C2 in its scoring system.
Both groups showed comparable clinical outcomes, strength and MRI findings at 24 months minimum follow-up. No significant correlation was found between repair technique and clinical outcomes or retear rates. Preoperative Patte and Goutallier grades >1 were associated with lower postoperative Constant-Murley scores.
This study suggests that both SR and DRSB techniques offer comparable clinical outcomes and tendon healing rates for rotator cuff tears in patients over 55 at 24 months minimum follow-up. While limitations exist, our findings contribute to understanding optimal surgical approaches, emphasizing individualized treatment based on patient characteristics and surgeon expertise. Further research, including randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up, is needed to refine treatment algorithms and improve patient outcomes in rotator cuff surgery.
Level III.
关节镜下肩袖修复技术不断发展，基于缝线锚钉的技术如单排（SR）和双排缝线桥接（DRSB）越来越受欢迎。尽管有所改进，但早期修复失败仍然令人担忧，因此需要持续评估修复方法和器械的长期影响。本研究比较了至少随访24个月的DRSB与SR修复，假设DRSB技术具有更好的临床结果和改善的肌腱愈合情况。
50例肩袖撕裂患者接受了SR或DRSB修复。临床评估包括标准化评分系统和力量测试。磁共振成像（MRI）评估肌腱完整性。部分肩袖撕裂根据斯奈德的南加州骨科研究所肩袖分类系统进行评估，该系统在其评分系统中将<2 cm的损伤分类为C2。
在至少随访24个月时，两组的临床结果、力量和MRI表现相当。修复技术与临床结果或再撕裂率之间未发现显著相关性。术前Patte和Goutallier分级>1与术后较低的Constant-Murley评分相关。
本研究表明，在至少随访24个月时，SR和DRSB技术对于55岁以上肩袖撕裂患者的临床结果和肌腱愈合率相当。虽然存在局限性，但我们的研究结果有助于理解最佳手术方法，强调根据患者特征和外科医生专业知识进行个体化治疗。需要进一步的研究，包括长期随访的随机对照试验，以完善治疗方案并改善肩袖手术的患者预后。
III级。
