الفهرس 
List of Tables.Only 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 150 |  |  |
| | | from | 150 | | |
Abstract
We compared the clinical and imaging outcome of rotator cuff tears repaired arthroscopically using a standard single- or double-row technique. In our hands, the single- and double-row techniques provide comparable clinical outcomes. Compared with the single-row method, a double-row technique produces a mechanically superior construct in restoring the anatomical footprint of the rotator cuff, but these mechanical advantages might not translate to superior clinical performance. However, we demonstrated clinical superiority of the double row technique in repair of massive tears.
No patients were lost to follow-up, and all completed the 18 months evaluation. The average number of anchors used were significantly higher in DR repairs when compared to SR-ARCR. Excluding the issue of one case of retear after repair of a massive tear with SR-ARCR, there were no complications in the groups. There were no neurological injuries, no deep infections, and no anchor pullouts.There is also significant difference related to Length of stay and operative time.The UCLA, CMS, and OSS scores, did not differ significantly between the patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair using single-row lateral fixation and the patients in which double-row fixation was used in rotator cuff tears less than 3 cm. Furthermore, there were no differences between the groups in regard to ROM and EQ5D.
Therefore, our hypothesis that double-row fixation yields superior quality-of-life outcomes compared with single-row lateral fixation was not supported in small to medium RC tears, however there is evidence of superiority of DR repair in massive tears.
In our prospective studycomparing single-row compared with suture bridge double-row rotator cuff fixation shows a significant improvement with the SB-DR technique in clinical evaluation. In over 3 cm tears, the improvement appears in more measurements than in ten to 30-mm tears.Also DR repair demonstrated better outcome compared to SR, but this is likely to be reflected on the Oxford and CMS scores and not on the UCLA score. Our finding suggest that a patient with a tear > 3 cm undergoing a single-row repair will perform worse and expected poor outcome will be most evident, as compared with a SR< 3 cm or a DR> 3 cm patient, on both the Oxford and CMS scores.
The same patient’s poor outcome will be differentiated from that of a DR< 3 cm patient on the basis of the CMS (not so much the Oxford score).The UCLA score is not affected much by the type of repair or the tear size, which would raise questions about the credibility of using UCLA scores in similar studies.Although our literature review results support previous biomechanical studies presenting superiority of double-row repair over single-row repair, there was no significant difference in patients with small to medium tears. That means that with small to medium tears, single-row repair may be as effective as double-row repair. But when we compared the cost of the surgery, the number of anchors used made a significant difference between the 2 groups. Because fewer anchors are used in the single-row repair, the cost of surgery was lower in the single-row repair group. In addition, a longer time was required for the additional anchor insertion procedure, suture passing procedure, and knot tying in the double-row repair group compared with the single-row repair group.