4.6 Article

Can a double-row anchorage technique improve tendon healing in Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair? A prospective, nonrandomized, comparative study of double-row and single-row anchorage techniques with computed tomographic arthrography tendon healing assessment

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
Volume 35, Issue 8, Pages 1247-1253

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0363546507301661

Keywords

arthroscopy rotator cuff repair; rotator cuff footprint; double-row fixation; tendon healing

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Increasing the rate of watertight tendon healing has been suggested as an important criterion for optimizing clinical results in rotator cuff arthroscopic repair. Hypothesis: A double-row anchorage technique for rotator cuff repair will produce better clinical results and a better rate of tendon healing than a single-row technique. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: We compared 31 patients undergoing surgery with a double-row anchorage technique using Panalok anchors and Cuff Tack anchors and 35 patients with rotator cuff tear undergoing surgery with a single-row anchorage arthroscopic technique using Panalok anchors. We compared pre- and postoperative Constant score and tendon healing, as evaluated by computed tomographic arthrography 6 months after surgery, in these 2 groups. Results: The Constant score increased significantly in both groups, with no difference between the 2 groups (P =.4). Rotator cuff healing was judged anatomic in 19 patients with double-row anchorage and in 14 patients with single-row anchorage; this difference between the groups was significant (P =.03). Conclusion: In this first study comparing double- and single-row anchorage techniques, we found no significant difference in clinical results, but tendon healing rates were better with the double-row anchorage. Improvements in the double-row technique might lead to better clinical and tendon healing results.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available