Can Successful Outcomes be Achieved using the Single-Row Rather Than the Double-Row Technique for Repair of a Rotator Cuff Tear?

Year 2019, , 68 - 73, 20.03.2019

Hakkı Çağdaş Basat , Mehmet Armangil , Yener Yoğun

https://doi.org/10.31832/smj.485092

Abstract

Aim:To compare the outcomes of patients grouped according to the intraoperative size of the anteroposterior tear treated using double- or single-row repair techniques. 

Material and methods:We examined the outcomes of 112 patients who met our inclusion/exclusion criteria by using the preoperative and postoperative Constant scores. We divided the patients treated using single- or double-row techniques into 4 groups based on the intraoperative size of the anteroposterior tear, including both the supraspinatus and infraspinatus tears. Further, we divided the patients in these 4 groups into two additional subgroups treated using single- and double-row techniques. 

Results:The single-row group included 64 patients and the double-row group included 48 patients. The mean follow-up time for the single- and double-row groups was 35.6 and 33.5 months, respectively. We observed a significant improvement in the outcomes of patients in the single- and double-row groups; the preoperative and postoperative Constant scores of patients in the single-row groups were 36 and 81.2, respectively (p = 0.00001). The preoperative and postoperative Constant scores of patients in the double-row groups were 31.6 and 74.3, respectively (p = 0.00001). Patients with an intraoperative tear size of 1-3 cm treated using the single-row technique showed better outcomes than those treated using the double-row technique (postoperative Constant scores 81.2 and 71.86, respectively, p = 0.00585). 

Conclusion:Thus, the single-row repair technique was used successfully in patients with supraspinatus and infraspinatus tears ranging from 1-3 cm.

Keywords

constant score, double row, single row, size of the anteroposterior tear, rotator cuff tear, rotator cuff repair

Rotator Manşet Yırtığı Onarımı İçin Çift Sıra Tamir Tekniği Yerine Tek Sıra Tamir Tekniği Kullanılarak Başarılı Sonuçlar Elde Edilebilir Mi?

Abstract

Amaç:Cerrahi sırasındaki rotator manşetteki anteroposterior yırtık ölçüsüne göre oluşturulan gruplardaki tek sıra ya da çift sıra tamir yöntemi ile opere edilen hastaların klinik sonuçlarını karşılaştırmak. 

Gereç ve yöntemler:Dâhil etme ve etmeme kriterlerine uyan 112 hastanın cerrahi öncesi ve sonrası sonuçları Constant Skoru kullanılarak değerlendirildi. Hem supraspinatus hem de infraspinatus yırtığına aynı anda sahip olan, tek sıra ya da çift sıra tamir yöntemi ile opere edilen hastalar, cerrahi sırasında saptanan anteroposterior yırtık ölçüsüne göre 4 gruba ayrıldı. Ayrıca bu 4 grup, çift sıra ve tek sıra olmak üzere 2 subgruba daha ayrıldı. 

Bulgular: Hastaların 64’ü tek sıra, 48’i çift sıra grubu içindedir. Ortalama takip süresi tek sıra grubu ve çift sıra grubu için sırası ile 35,6 ve 33,5 aydır. Hem tek sıra hem de çift sıra grubundaki hastaların sonuçlarında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı ilerleme saptandı; tek sıra grubunda cerrahi öncesi ve sonrasındaki Constant skorları sırası ile 36 ve 81,2 olarak saptandı (p=0.00001). Çift sıra grubunda cerrahi öncesi ve sonrasındaki Constant skorları sırası ile 31,6 ve 74,3 olarak saptandı (p=0,00001). Cerrahi sırasında yırtık ölçüleri 1cm ile 3cm arasındaki grupta yer alan hastalardan, tek sıra tekniği ile tedavi edilen hastaların sonuçlarının, çift sıra tekniği ile tedavi edilenlere göre daha iyi olduğu saptandı. (Cerrahi sonrasında Constant skorları sırası ile 81,2 ve 71,86 olarak saptandı, p=0,00585).

Sonuç:Cerrahi öncesi AP yırtık ölçüleri 1cm ile 3cm arasında hem supraspinatus hem de infraspinatus yırtığının ikisine de sahip olan hastalarda, tek sıra tamir uygulaması başarılı bir şekilde uygulanmıştır.

Keywords

constant skoru, tek sıra, çift sıra, anteroposterior yırtık ölçüsü, rotator manşet yırtığı, rotator manşet tamiri

References

• References
• 1. Kim YK, Moon SH and Cho SH. Treatment outcomes of single- versus double-row repair for larger than medium-sized rotator cuff tears: the effect of preoperative remnant tendon length. Am J Sports Med 2013; 41: 2270-2277. 2013/08/15. DOI: 10.1177/0363546513499000.2. Tudisco C, Bisicchia S, Savarese E, et al. Single-row vs. double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: clinical and 3 Tesla MR arthrography results. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2013; 14: 43. 2013/01/29. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-14-43.3. Xu C, Zhao J and Li D. Meta-analysis comparing single-row and double-row repair techniques in the arthroscopic treatment of rotator cuff tears. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2014; 23: 182-188. 2013/11/05. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2013.08.005.4. Spiegl UJ, Euler SA, Millett PJ, et al. Summary of Meta-Analyses Dealing with Single-Row versus Double-Row Repair Techniques for Rotator Cuff Tears. Open Orthop J 2016; 10: 330-338. 2016/10/07. DOI: 10.2174/1874325001610010330.5. Chen M, Xu W, Dong Q, et al. Outcomes of single-row versus double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of current evidence. Arthroscopy 2013; 29: 1437-1449. 2013/05/29. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2013.03.076.6. Grasso A, Milano G, Salvatore M, et al. Single-row versus double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a prospective randomized clinical study. Arthroscopy 2009; 25: 4-12. 2008/12/30. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2008.09.018.7. Hantes ME, Ono Y, Raoulis VA, et al. Arthroscopic Single-Row Versus Double-Row Suture Bridge Technique for Rotator Cuff Tears in Patients Younger Than 55 Years: A Prospective Comparative Study. Am J Sports Med 2018; 46: 116-121. 2017/09/26. DOI: 10.1177/0363546517728718.8. Carbonel I, Martinez AA, Calvo A, et al. Single-row versus double-row arthroscopic repair in the treatment of rotator cuff tears: a prospective randomized clinical study. Int Orthop 2012; 36: 1877-1883. 2012/05/16. DOI: 10.1007/s00264-012-1559-9.9. Grimberg J, Diop A, Kalra K, et al. In vitro biomechanical comparison of three different types of single- and double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs: analysis of continuous bone-tendon contact pressure and surface during different simulated joint positions. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2010; 19: 236-243. 2009/12/10. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2009.09.006.10. Lorbach O, Bachelier F, Vees J, et al. Cyclic loading of rotator cuff reconstructions: single-row repair with modified suture configurations versus double-row repair. Am J Sports Med 2008; 36: 1504-1510. 2008/02/26. DOI: 10.1177/0363546508314424.11. Nicholas SJ, Lee SJ, Mullaney MJ, et al. Functional Outcomes After Double-Row Versus Single-Row Rotator Cuff Repair: A Prospective Randomized Trial. Orthop J Sports Med 2016; 4: 2325967116667398. 2016/10/21. DOI: 10.1177/2325967116667398.12. Jo CH, Shin WH, Park JW, et al. Degree of tendon degeneration and stage of rotator cuff disease. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25: 2100-2108. 2016/11/30. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-016-4376-7.13. Kang Y, Lee GY, Lee JW, et al. Texture Analysis of Torn Rotator Cuff on Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Arthrography as a Predictor of Postoperative Tendon Status. Korean J Radiol 2017; 18: 691-698. 2017/07/04. DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2017.18.4.691.14. Kuzel BR, Grindel S, Papandrea R, et al. Fatty infiltration and rotator cuff atrophy. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2013; 21: 613-623. 2013/10/03. DOI: 10.5435/JAAOS-21-10-613.15. Mall NA, Tanaka MJ, Choi LS, et al. Factors affecting rotator cuff healing. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014; 96: 778-788. 2014/05/09. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.M.00583.16. Miyazaki AN, Santos PD, Sella GD, et al. Evaluation of the functional results after rotator cuff arthroscopic repair with the suture bridge technique. Rev Bras Ortop 2017; 52: 164-168. 2017/04/15. DOI: 10.1016/j.rboe.2016.05.008.17. Ohzono H, Gotoh M, Nakamura H, et al. Effect of Preoperative Fatty Degeneration of the Rotator Cuff Muscles on the Clinical Outcome of Patients With Intact Tendons After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair of Large/Massive Cuff Tears. Am J Sports Med 2017; 45: 2975-2981. 2017/09/15. DOI: 10.1177/0363546517724432.18. Lee SH, Kim JW, Kim TK, et al. Is the arthroscopic suture bridge technique suitable for full-thickness rotator cuff tears of any size? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25: 2138-2146. 2017/01/20. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-016-4415-4.19. Park JY, Lhee SH, Choi JH, et al. Comparison of the clinical outcomes of single- and double-row repairs in rotator cuff tears. Am J Sports Med 2008; 36: 1310-1316. 2008/04/17. DOI: 10.1177/0363546508315039.20. Zhang Q, Ge H, Zhou J, et al. Single-row or double-row fixation technique for full-thickness rotator cuff tears: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 2013; 8: e68515. 2013/07/23. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068515.21. Kukkonen J, Kauko T, Vahlberg T, et al. Investigating minimal clinically important difference for Constant score in patients undergoing rotator cuff surgery. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2013; 22: 1650-1655. 2013/07/16. DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2013.05.002.22. Roy JS, MacDermid JC and Woodhouse LJ. Measuring shoulder function: a systematic review of four questionnaires. Arthritis Rheum 2009; 61: 623-632. 2009/05/01. DOI: 10.1002/art.24396.23. Yel M and Arazi M. [Classification of rotator cuff tears]. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc 2003; 37 Suppl 1: 77-82. 2003/10/28.24. Cofield RH. Rotator cuff disease of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1985; 67: 974-979. 1985/07/01.