Paper # 25: Single-Row Rotator Cuff Repair Using a Modified Suture Configuration versus a Suture-Bridging Double-Row Repair - Comparable Biomechanical Results and Complete Footprint Coverage Independent of the Initial Tear Size

2011 ◽  
Vol 27 (10) ◽  
pp. e86-e87
Author(s):  
Olaf Lorbach ◽  
Dietrich Pape ◽  
Florian Raber ◽  
Dieter Kohn ◽  
Matthias Kieb
Keyword(s):  
Rotator Cuff ◽  
Rotator Cuff Repair ◽  
Double Row ◽  
Single Row ◽  
Double Row Repair ◽  
Cuff Repair ◽  
Tear Size

Arthroscopic Single-Row versus Double-Row Suture Anchor Rotator Cuff Repair

2005 ◽  
Vol 33 (12) ◽  
pp. 1861-1868 ◽  
Author(s):  
Augustus D. Mazzocca ◽  
Peter J. Millett ◽  
Carlos A. Guanche ◽  
Stephen A. Santangelo ◽  
Robert A. Arciero
Keyword(s):  
Rotator Cuff ◽  
Rotator Cuff Repair ◽  
Double Row ◽  
Single Row ◽  
Load To Failure ◽  
Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff ◽  
Double Row Repair ◽  
Cuff Repair ◽  
Repair Techniques

Background Recurrent defects after open and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair are common. Double-row repair techniques may improve initial fixation and quality of rotator cuff repair. Purpose To evaluate the load to failure, cyclic displacement, and anatomical footprint of 4 arthroscopic rotator cuff repair techniques. Hypothesis Double-row suture anchor repair would have superior structural properties and would create a larger footprint compared to single-row repair. Study Design Controlled laboratory study. Methods Twenty fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders were randomly assigned to 4 arthroscopic repair techniques. The repair was performed as either a single-row technique or 1 of 3 double-row techniques: diamond, mattress double anchor, or modified mattress double anchor. Angle of loading, anchor type, bone mineral density, anchor distribution, angle of anchor insertion, arthroscopic technique, and suture type and size were all controlled. Footprint length and width were quantified before and after repair. Displacement with cyclic loading and load to failure were determined. Results There were no differences in load to failure and displacement with cyclic loading between the single-row repair and each double-row repair. All repair groups demonstrated load to failure greater than 250 N. A significantly greater supraspinatus footprint width was seen with double-row techniques compared to single-row repair. Conclusions The single-row repair technique was similar to the double-row techniques in load to failure, cyclic displacement, and gap formation. The double-row anchor repairs consistently restored a larger footprint than did the single-row method. Clinical Relevance The arthroscopic techniques studied have strong structural properties that approached the reported performance of open repair techniques. Double-row techniques provide a larger footprint width; although not addressed by this study, such a factor may improve the biological quality of repair.

The Effect of Abduction and Rotation on Footprint Contact for Single-Row, Double-Row, and Modified Double-Row Rotator Cuff Repair Techniques

2009 ◽  
Vol 37 (8) ◽  
pp. 1599-1608 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maxwell C. Park ◽  
Joseph M. Pirolo ◽  
Chong J. Park ◽  
James E. Tibone ◽  
Michelle H. McGarry ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rotator Cuff ◽  
Internal Rotation ◽  
Rotator Cuff Repair ◽  
Tendon Repair ◽  
Abduction Angle ◽  
Double Row ◽  
Bone Contact ◽  
Single Row ◽  
Double Row Repair ◽  
Cuff Repair

Background An abduction pillow and abduction and rotation exercises are commonly used after rotator cuff repair. The effect of glenohumeral abduction and rotation on footprint contact has not been elucidated. Hypothesis Abduction will decrease tendon-to-bone contact for all repairs. A modified double-row repair will maintain footprint contact more effectively at each position of humeral abduction and rotation than double- or single-row repairs. Study Design Controlled laboratory study. Methods In 6 fresh-frozen human shoulders, a modified double-row supraspinatus tendon repair was performed; a suture limb from each of 2 medial anchors was bridged over the tendon and fixed laterally. Double- and single-row repairs were performed sequentially; a total of 3 repairs were tested. For all repairs, a Tekscan pressure sensor was fixed at the tendon-footprint interface. The tendon was loaded with 30 N. The shoulders were tested at 0°, 30°, and 60° of abduction with 0° of rotation. For both dual-row repairs, 5 rotation positions were tested. Results The greatest contact areas at neutral rotation were achieved at 0° of abduction for the modified double-row, double-row, and single-row repairs (151.3 ± 10.7 mm2, 80.7 ± 30.0 mm2, and 61.3 ± 26.1 mm2, respectively), with values decreasing as abduction increased. Each repair was significantly different from one another at each abduction angle (P <. 05), except between single-and double-row repairs at 0° of abduction. Mean interface pressure exerted over the footprint was greater for the modified double-row technique than for the other techniques at each abduction angle (P <. 05). With respect to rotation, the modified double-row repair had significantly more footprint contact than did the double-row repair at each position tested (P <. 05). Conclusion For a given repair, increasing abduction at neutral rotation reduced footprint contact. Internal rotation to 60° provided among the highest contact measurements. The modified double-row technique provided the most contact. Clinical Relevance Results are consistent with the practice of immobilizing the shoulder with 30° or less of abduction and up to 60° of internal rotation to optimize footprint contact. A dual-row repair may maximize contact when initiating rehabilitation that involves abduction and rotation.

scholarly journals In Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Surgery, Is There a Difference in the Results of Repair Made With Single or Double Rows According to the Shape and Size of the Tear?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ozgun Karakus ◽  
Ozgur Karaman ◽  
Ahmet Sinan Sari ◽  
Baransel Saygi
Keyword(s):  
Rotator Cuff ◽  
Rotator Cuff Repair ◽  
Functional Results ◽  
Double Row ◽  
Single Row ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Group A ◽  
Double Row Repair ◽  
Cuff Repair ◽  
Shape And Size

Abstract IntroductionThe aim of this study was to evaluate the effect on the results of patients applied with arthroscopic full layer total layer rotator cuff repair made according to the shape and size of the tear.Materials and MethodsThe study included a total of 120 patients applied with arthroscopic full layer rotator cuff repair as single or double row repair, comprising 69 (57.5%) females and 51 (42.5%) males. The patients were separated into 3 groups of 40 according to the shape of the tear, as Group A (crescent type), Group B (U type), and Group C (L type). Within each group, classification was made according to the size of the tear. The long-term postoperative functional results were compared between the groups. ResultsThe mean age of the whole sample was 66.68±6.86 years (range, 50-81 years). A statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of Constant Murley (CM), ASES, and UCLA scores (p<0.05). The scores of Group A of all the scales were found to be higher than those of Group C (p<0.05). In single row and double row repair of small and medium-sized tears of all shapes, no significant difference was determined in respect of the CM and UCLA scores (p>0.05). In the large tears, no significant difference was determined between crescent and U-shaped tears in respect of the CM and UCLA scores (p>0.05).ConclusionsNo significant difference was determined between single and double row repair of crescent type tears of all sizes. In the repair of small and medium-sized U type tears, no significant difference was determined between single and double row repair in respect of the CM and UCLA scores. In large U-shaped tears, the CM, ASES, and UCLA scores were determined to be high in double row repair. No significant difference was determined between single and double row repair of L type small and medium-sized tears. In the large L -shaped tears, the results of the single row repair were found to be higher than those of the cases with double row repair.

scholarly journals In Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Surgery, is there a Difference in the Results of Repair made with Single or Double Rows according to the Shape and Size of the Tear?

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ozgun Karakus ◽  
Ozgur Karaman ◽  
Ahmet Sinan Sari ◽  
Baransel Saygi
Keyword(s):  
Rotator Cuff ◽  
Rotator Cuff Repair ◽  
Functional Results ◽  
Double Row ◽  
Single Row ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Group A ◽  
Double Row Repair ◽  
Cuff Repair ◽  
Shape And Size

Abstract Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect on the results of patients applied with arthroscopic full layer total layer rotator cuff repair made according to the shape and size of the tear.Methods: The study included a total of 120 patients applied with arthroscopic full layer rotator cuff repair as single or double row repair, comprising 69 (57.5%) females and 51 (42.5%) males. The patients were separated into 3 groups of 40 according to the shape of the tear, as Group A (crescent type), Group B (U type), and Group C (L type). Within each group, classification was made according to the size of the tear. The long-term postoperative functional results were compared between the groups. Results: The mean age of the whole sample was 66.68±6.86 years (range, 50-81 years). A statistically significant difference was determined between the groups in respect of Constant Murley (CM), ASES, and UCLA scores (p<0.05). The scores of Group A of all the scales were found to be higher than those of Group C (p<0.05). In single row and double row repair of small and medium-sized tears of all shapes, no significant difference was determined in respect of the CM and UCLA scores (p>0.05). In the large tears, no significant difference was determined between crescent and U-shaped tears in respect of the CM and UCLA scores (p>0.05). Conclusions: No significant difference was determined between single and double row repair of crescent type tears of all sizes. In the repair of small and medium-sized U type tears, no significant difference was determined between single and double row repair in respect of the CM and UCLA scores. In large U-shaped tears, the CM, ASES, and UCLA scores were determined to be high in double row repair. No significant difference was determined between single and double row repair of L type small and medium-sized tears. In the large L -shaped tears, the results of the single row repair were found to be higher than those of the cases with double row repair.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document