Single- versus double-row repair for full-thickness rotator cuff tears using suture anchors. A systematic review and meta-analysis of basic biomechanical studies
- 405 Downloads
The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing single- and double-row biomechanical studies to evaluate load to failure, mode of failure and gap formation.
Materials and methods
A systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and Google Scholar was performed from 1990 through 2016. The inclusion criteria were: documentation of ultimate load to failure, failure modes and documentation of elongation or gap formation. Studies were excluded if the study protocol did not use human specimens. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plot and Egger’s test. The risk of bias was established using the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool. Heterogeneity was assessed using χ 2 and I 2 statistic.
Eight studies were included. The funnel plot was asymmetric suggesting publication bias, which was confirmed by Egger’s test (p = 0.04). The pooled estimate for load to failure demonstrated significant differences (SMD 1.228, 95% CI: 0.55–5.226, p = 0.006, I 2 = 60.47%), favouring double-row repair. There were no differences for failure modes. The pooled estimate for elongation/gap formation demonstrated significant differences (SMD 0.783, 95% CI: 0.169–1.398, p = 0.012, I 2 = 58.8%), favouring double-row repair.
The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that double-row repair is able to tolerate a significantly greater load to failure. Gap formation was also significantly lower in the double-row repair group, but both of these findings should be interpreted with caution because of the inherent interstudy heterogeneity.
Level of evidence
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
KeywordsBasic science Biomechanics Rotator cuff tear Single-row repair Double-row repair Meta-analysis Systematic review
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest in relation to the presented body of research.
- 3.Park MC, Cadet ER, Levine WN, Bigliani LU, Ahmad CS (2005) Tendon-to-bone pressure distributions at a repaired rotator cuff footprint using transosseous suture and suture anchor fixation techniques. Am J Sports Med 33(8):1154–1159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546504273053 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Mascarenhas R, Chalmers PN, Sayegh ET, Bhandari M, Verma NN, Cole B et al (2014) Is double-row rotator cuff repair clinically superior to single-row rotator cuff repair: a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses. Arthroscopy 30(9):1156–1165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2014.03.015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Burks RT, Crim J, BrownN Fink B, Greis PE (2009) A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing arthroscopic single- and double row rotator cuff repair: magnetic resonance imaging and early clinical evaluation. Am J Sports Med 37(4):674–682. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546508328115 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Higgins JPT, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.9 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane CollaborationGoogle Scholar
- 16.Park MC, ElAttrache NS, Tibone JE, Ahmad CS, Jun BJ, Lee TQ (2007) Part I: footprint contact characteristics for transosseous-equivalent rotator cuff repair technique compared with a double-row repair technique. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 16(4):461–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2006.09.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Park MC, ElAttrache NS, Tibone JE, Ahmad CS, Jun BJ, Lee TQ (2007) Part II: biomechanical assessment for a footprint restoring transosseous-equivalent rotator cuff repair technique compared with a double-row repair technique. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 16(4):469–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2006.09.011 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Pietschmann MF, Hölzer A, Rösl C, Scharpf A, Niethammer T, Jansson V et al (2010) What humeri are suitable for comparative testing of suture anchors? An ultrastructural bone analysis and biomechanical study of ovine, bovine and human humeri and four different anchor types. J Biomech 43(6):1125–1130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2009.12.021 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Hartling L, Hamm M, Milne A, Vandermeer B, Santaguida PL, Ansari M et al (2012) Validity and inter-rater reliability testing of quality assessment instruments. (Prepared by the University of Alberta Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10021-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 12-EHC039-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. March 2012. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm. Accessed 12 Aug 2016
- 21.Barber FA, Drew OR (2012) A biomechanical comparison of tendon-bone interface motion and cyclic loading between single-row, triple loaded cuff repairs and double-row, suture tape cuff repairs using biocomposite anchors. Arthroscopy 28(9):1197–1205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2012.02.015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Lorbach O, Kieb M, Raber F, Busch LC, Kohn D, Pape D (2012) Comparable biomechanical results for a modified single-row rotator cuff reconstruction using triple loaded suture anchors versus a suture-bridging double-row repair. Arthroscopy 28(2):178–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2011.08.298 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Millett PJ, Warth RJ, Dornan GJ, Lee JT, Spiegl UJ (2014) Clinical and structural outcomes after arthroscopic single-row versus double-row rotator cuff repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of level I randomized clinical trials. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 23(4):586–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2013.10.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 29.Goschka AM, Hafer JS, Reynolds KA, Aberle NS II, Baldini TH, Hawkins MJ et al (2015) Biomechanical comparison of traditional anchors to all-suture anchors in a double-row rotator cuff repair cadaver model. Clin Biomech 30:808–813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2015.06.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 40.Ikai M, Fukunaga T (1968) Calculation of muscle strength per unit of cross-sectional area of human muscle. Int Z Angew Physiol einschliesslich Arbeitsphysiol 26:26–31Google Scholar