Abstract
Restoring of anatomic footprint may improve the healing and mechanical strength of repaired tendons. A double row of suture anchors increases the tendon-bone contact area, reconstituting a more anatomic configuration of the rotator cuff footprint.
We aimed to investigate if there were differences in clinical and imaging outcome between single row and double row suture anchor technique repairs of rotator cuff tears.
We recruited 60 patients affected by a rotator cuff tear diagnosed on clinical grounds, magnetic resonance imaging evidence of cuff tear and inadequate response to nonoperative management, an unretracted and sufficiently mobile full-thickness rotator cuff lesion to allow a double row repair found at the time of surgery.
In 30 patients, rotator cuff repair was performed with single row suture anchor technique (Group 1). In the other 30 patients, rotator cuff repair was performed with double row suture anchor technique (Group 2). 8 patients (4 in the single row anchor repair group and 4 in the double row anchor repair group) were lost at follow up.
A modified UCLA shoulder rating scale was used to evaluate preoperative and postoperative shoulder pain, function and range of motion, strength and patient satisfaction. All patients received a post-operative MR arthrography at the final follow up appointment.
At the 2 year follow-up, no statistically significant differences were seen with respect to the UCLA score and ROM values. Post-operative MR arthrography at 2 years of follow up in group 1 showed intact tendons in 14 patients, partial thickness defects in 10 patients and full thickness defects in 2 patients. In group 2, MR arthrography showed an intact rotator cuff in 18 patients, partial thickness defects in 7 patients, and full thickness defects in 1 patient.
Biomechanical studies comparing single versus double row suture anchor technique for rotator cuff repair show that a double row of suture anchors increases the tendonbone contact area and restores the anatomic rotator cuff footprint, providing a better environment for tendon healing.
Our study shows that there are no advantages in using a double row suture anchor technique to restore the anatomical footprint. The mechanical advantages evidenced in cadaveric studies do not translate into superior clinical performance when compared with the more traditionally, technically less demanding, and economically more advantageous technique of single row suture anchor repair.
Correspondence should be addressed to: EFORT Central Office, Technoparkstrasse 1, CH – 8005 Zürich, Switzerland. Email: office@efort.org