The effect of row number on clinical and life quality outcomes of patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 4 Sayı: 5, 728 - 734, 05.09.2021

Mahmut Günay , Gökay Eken

https://doi.org/10.32322/jhsm.957621

Öz

Objective: Shoulder pain and disability are mostly seen following rotator cuff rupture. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair becomes a gold standard treatment for rotator cuff rupture when conservative treatment fails. Comparing functional results, retear rates and reoperation rates of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in terms of single-row versus double row techniques is our aim in this study.
Material and Method: Overall, 174 arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery patients were specified into 2 groups. Group 1 consists of 81 patients underwent single-row repair and group 2 consists of 93 patients consisted of transosseos equivalent technique double row. We evaluated demographic data and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Constant Murley, Visual analogue scale and 36-item Short Form subscale scores.
Results: Mean follow-up time was 14.08±4.77 months. ASES, CM and VAS following ARCR were similar between two groups. Some of SF-36 subscale score improvements after operation are significantly better in group 2; role limitations due to physical health (p = 0.041), energy/fatigue (p = 0.026), emotional well-being (p = 0.017), pain (p = 0.010), general health (p = 0.037). Re-rupture rates were significantly different. In group 1 re-rupture rate was 13.6% and for group 2 it was 1.1% (p = 0.001).
Conclusion: Lower re-rupture rates, and improved quality of life outcomes at short-term follow-up can be obtained by arthroscopic double-row repair. We suggest that the double-row technique can be considered for patients who have medium to large rotator cuff tears for lower re-rupture rates and some quality of life outcomes.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Single-row, double-row, arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, re-rupture

Kaynakça

• Senna LF, Ramos MRF, Bergamaschi RF. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: single-row vs. double-row - clinical results after one to four years. Rev Bras Ortop 2018; 53: 448-53.
• Aydin N, Karaismailoglu B, Gurcan M, Ozsahin MK. Arthroscopic double-row rotator cuff repair: a comprehensive review of the literature. Sicot j 2018; 4: 57.
• Spiegl UJ, Euler SA, Millett PJ, Hepp P. Summary of meta-analyses dealing with single-row versus double-row repair techniques for rotator cuff tears. Open Orthop J 2016; 10: 330-8.
• Huang AL, Thavorn K, van Katwyk S, MacDonald P, Lapner P. Double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is more cost-effective than single-row repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017; 99: 1730-6.
• Hohmann E, König A, Kat CJ, Glatt V, Tetsworth K, Keough N. Single- versus double-row repair for full-thickness rotator cuff tears using suture anchors. A systematic review and meta-analysis of basic biomechanical studies. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2018; 28: 859-68.
• Meisel AF, Henninger HB, Barber FA, Getelman MH. Biomechanical comparison of standard and linked single-row rotator cuff repairs in a human cadaver model. Arthroscopy 2017; 33: 938-44.
• Simmer Filho J, Voss A, Pauzenberger L, et al. Footprint coverage comparison between knotted and knotless techniques in a single-row rotator cuff repair: biomechanical analysis. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2019; 20: 123.
• Hurley ET, Maye AB, Mullett H. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses. JBJS Rev 2019; 7: e1.
• Galatz LM, Ball CM, Teefey SA, Middleton WD, Yamaguchi K. The outcome and repair integrity of completely arthroscopically repaired large and massive rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86: 219-24.
• Millett PJ, Warth RJ, Dornan GJ, Lee JT, Spiegl UJ. Clinical and structural outcomes after arthroscopic single-row versus double-row rotator cuff repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of level I randomized clinical trials. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2014; 23: 586-97.
• Sahoo S, Ricchetti ET, Zajichek A, et al. Associations of preoperative patient mental health and sociodemographic and clinical characteristics with baseline pain, function, and satisfaction in patients undergoing rotator cuff repairs. Am J Sports Med 2020; 48: 432-43.
• DeOrio JK, Cofield RH. Results of a second attempt at surgical repair of a failed initial rotator-cuff repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1984; 66: 563-7.
• Richards RR, An KN, Bigliani LU, et al. A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 1994; 3: 347-52.
• Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1987; 214: 160-4.
• Boonstra AM, Schiphorst Preuper HR, Reneman MF, Posthumus JB, Stewart RE. Reliability and validity of the visual analogue scale for disability in patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Int J Rehabil Res 2008; 31: 165-9.
• Laucis NC, Hays RD, Bhattacharyya T. Scoring the SF-36 in orthopaedics: a brief guide. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97: 1628-34.
• Kim DH, Elattrache NS, Tibone JE, et al. Biomechanical comparison of a single-row versus double-row suture anchor technique for rotator cuff repair. Am J Sports Med 2006; 34: 407-14.
• Smith CD, Alexander S, Hill AM, et al. A biomechanical comparison of single and double-row fixation in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88: 2425-31.
• Brady PC, Arrigoni P, Burkhart SS. Evaluation of residual rotator cuff defects after in vivo single- versus double-row rotator cuff repairs. Arthroscopy 2006; 22: 1070-5.
• Ma CB, Comerford L, Wilson J, Puttlitz CM. Biomechanical evaluation of arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs: double-row compared with single-row fixation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88: 403-10.
• Charousset C, Grimberg J, Duranthon LD, Bellaiche L, Petrover D. Can a double-row anchorage technique improve tendon healing in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair?: A prospective, nonrandomized, comparative study of double-row and single-row anchorage techniques with computed tomographic arthrography tendon healing assessment. Am J Sports Med 2007; 35: 1247-53.
• Franceschi F, Papalia R, Franceschetti E, et al. Double-Row Repair Lowers the Retear Risk After Accelerated Rehabilitation. Am J Sports Med 2016; 44: 948-56.
• Franceschi F, Ruzzini L, Longo UG, et al. Equivalent clinical results of arthroscopic single-row and double-row suture anchor repair for rotator cuff tears: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med 2007; 35: 1254-60.
• 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.
• Sugaya H, Maeda K, Matsuki K, Moriishi J. Functional and structural outcome after arthroscopic full-thickness rotator cuff repair: single-row versus dual-row fixation. Arthroscopy 2005; 21: 1307-16.
• 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: 116-21.
• Saridakis P, Jones G. Outcomes of single-row and double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010; 92: 732-42.
• Tashjian RZ, Hollins AM, Kim HM, et al. Factors affecting healing rates after arthroscopic double-row rotator cuff repair. Am J Sports Med 2010; 38: 2435-42.
• Grasso A, Milano G, Salvatore M, Falcone G, Deriu L, Fabbriciani C. Single-row versus double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a prospective randomized clinical study. Arthroscopy 2009; 25: 4-12.