4.3 Review

Double-row vs single-row rotator cuff repair: A review of the biomechanical evidence

期刊

JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY
卷 18, 期 6, 页码 933-941

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2009.07.002

关键词

Rotator cuff; double-row repair; single-row repair; biomechanical; cadaver; review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hypothesis: A review of the current literature will show a difference between the biomechanical properties of double-row and single-row rotator cuff repairs. Background: Rotator cuff tears commonly necessitate surgical repair; however, the optimal technique for repair continues to be investigated. Recently, double-row repairs have been considered an alternative to single-row repair, allowing a greater coverage area for healing and a possibly stronger repair. Materials and Methods: We reviewed the literature of all biomechanical studies comparing double-row vs single-row repair techniques. Inclusion criteria included studies using cadaveric, animal, or human models that directly compared double-row vs single-row repair techniques, written in the English language, and published in peer reviewed journals. Identified articles were reviewed to provide a comprehensive conclusion of the biomechanical strength and integrity of the repair techniques. Results: Fifteen Studies were identified and reviewed. Nine studies showed a statistically significant advantage to a double-row repair with regards to biomechanical strength, failure, and gap formation. Three studies produced results that did not show any statistical advantage. Five studies that directly compared footprint reconstruction all demonstrated that the double-row repair was superior to a single-row repair in restoring anatomy. Conclusions: The current literature reveals that the biomechanical properties of a double-row rotator cuff repair are superior to a single-row repair. Level of evidence: Basic Science Study, SRH = Single vs. Double Row RCR (C) 2009 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据