A comparison of simple and complex single-row versus transosseous-equivalent double-row repair techniques for full-thickness rotator cuff tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Published in: JSES international Vol. 6; no. 1; pp. 70 - 78
• Main Authors: Ponugoti, Nikhil, Raghu, Aashish, Colaco, Henry B., Magill, Henry
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01-01-2022; Elsevier
• Subjects: Arthroscopy; Double-row repair; Rotator cuff; Rotator cuff repair; Shoulder; Shoulder arthroscopy; Shoulder injury; Shoulder trauma; Single-row repair; Double-row repair; Arthroscopy; Single-row repair; Shoulder injury; Shoulder trauma; Shoulder arthroscopy; Rotator cuff; Level III; Meta-analysis; Rotator cuff repair
• ISSN: 2666-6383; 2666-6383
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jseint.2021.09.007

Rotator cuff injuries have traditionally been managed by either single-row or double-row arthroscopic repair techniques. Complex single-row techniques have recently been proposed as a biomechanically stronger alternative treatment option. 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 (TOE) double-row procedures.
An up-to-date literature search was performed using the predefined search strategy. All studies that met the inclusion criteria were assessed for methodological quality and included in the meta-analysis. Pain, functional scores, range of motion, and retear rate were all considered in the study.
The results of our meta-analysis suggest that there is no significant difference between complex single-row and TOE double-row procedures in any of the observed outcomes. At this point in time, the available comparative data between simple single-row and TOE double-row repair techniques are limited. Further high-quality studies are required to assess the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of these different techniques.