Meta-analysis of Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes After Arthroscopic Single-Row Versus Double-Row Rotator Cuff Repair

Abstract

Context:Double-row rotator cuff repair methods have improved biomechanical performance when compared with single-row repairs.Objective:To review clinical outcomes of single-row versus double-row rotator cuff repair with the hypothesis that double-row rotator cuff repair will result in better clinical and radiographic outcomes.Data Sources:Published literature from January 1980 to April 2010. Key terms included rotator cuff, prospective studies, outcomes, and suture techniques.Study Selection:The literature was systematically searched, and 5 level I and II studies were found comparing clinical outcomes of single-row and double-row rotator cuff repair. Coleman methodology scores were calculated for each article.Data Extraction:Meta-analysis was performed, with treatment effect between single row and double row for clinical outcomes and with odds ratios for radiographic results. The sample size necessary to detect a given difference in clinical outcome between the 2 methods was calculated.Results:Three level I studies had Coleman scores of 80, 74, and 81, and two level II studies had scores of 78 and 73. There were 156 patients with single-row repairs and 147 patients with double-row repairs, both with an average follow-up of 23 months (range, 12-40 months). Double-row repairs resulted in a greater treatment effect for each validated outcome measure in 4 studies, but the differences were not clinically or statistically significant (range, 0.4-2.2 points; 95% confidence interval, –0.19, 4.68 points). Double-row repairs had better radiographic results, but the differences were also not statistically significant (P = 0.13). Two studies had adequate power to detect a 10-point difference between repair methods using the Constant score, and 1 study had power to detect a 5-point difference using the UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) score.Conclusions:Double-row rotator cuff repair does not show a statistically significant improvement in clinical outcome or radiographic healing with short-term follow-up.