Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

Research

A COMPARISON OF ARTHROSCOPIC SIMPLE AND COMPLEX SINGLE-ROW VERSUS TRANSOSSEOUS-EQUIVALENT DOUBLE-ROW REPAIR TECHNIQUES FOR FULL-THICKNESS ROTATOR CUFF INJURIES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

The British Orthopaedic Research Society (BORS) Annual Meeting 2021, held online, 13–14 September 2021.



Abstract

Abstract

Background

Rotator cuff injuries have traditionally been managed by either single-row or double-row arthroscopic repair techniques. Novel and more complex single-row methodologies have recently been proposed as a biomechanically stronger alternative. However, no rigorous meta-analysis has evaluated the effectiveness of complex single-row against double-row repair. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate clinical outcomes in patients with full-thickness rotator cuff injuries treated with both simple and complex single-row, as well as transosseous-equivalent double-row procedures.

Methods

An up-to-date literature search was performed using the pre-defined search strategy. All studies that met the inclusion criteria were assessed for methodological quality and included in the meta-analysis. Pain score, functional score, range-of-motion and Re-tear rate were all considered in the study.

Conclusion

The results of this meta-analysis suggest the there is no significant difference between simple single-row and TOE double-row in any of the observed outcomes. However, there are significantly improved ASES functional scores and lower re-tear rates with TOE DR when compared to sSR. The available data in the literature would therefore advocate the use of transosseous-equivalent double-row fixation for the treatment of full thickness cuff tears. This paper has highlighted other significant limitations in the included studies where further, more extensive literature is required on the subject to draw more robust conclusions.