These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Repair integrity and functional outcome after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: double-row versus suture-bridge technique.
    Author: Kim KC, Shin HD, Lee WY, Han SC.
    Journal: Am J Sports Med; 2012 Feb; 40(2):294-9. PubMed ID: 22074913.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Only a few studies have examined repair integrity and functional outcome after arthroscopic suture-bridge rotator cuff repair procedure. In addition, no reported study has compared outcomes between the suture-bridge and double-row techniques. PURPOSE: This study compared the functional outcome and repair integrity of arthroscopic double-row and conventional suture-bridge repair in full-thickness rotator cuff tears. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: Fifty-two consecutive full-thickness rotator cuff tears with 1 to 4 cm of anterior to posterior dimension that underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair were included. A double-row technique was used in the first 26 consecutive shoulders, and a conventional suture-bridge technique was used in the next 26 consecutive shoulders. Fifty shoulders (92.5%) underwent magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasonography postoperatively. Clinical outcomes were evaluated a minimum 2 years (mean, 37.2 months; range, 24-54) postoperatively using the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and Constant scores. The postoperative cuff integrity was evaluated a mean of 33.0 (range, 10-54) months postoperatively. RESULTS: At the final follow-up, the average UCLA, ASES, and Constant scores improved significantly, to 32.3, 90.5, and 80.7, respectively, in the double-row group and to 30.6, 88.5, and 74.0, respectively, in the suture-bridge group. The UCLA, ASES, and Constant scores improved in both groups postoperatively (all P < .001); however, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups at final follow-up (P = .185, .585, and .053, respectively). The retear rate was 24% in the shoulders that underwent double-row repair and 20% in the shoulders that underwent suture-bridge repair; this difference was not statistically significant (P = .733). CONCLUSION: The arthroscopic conventional suture-bridge technique resulted in comparable patient satisfaction, functional outcome, and rates of retear compared with the arthroscopic double-row technique in full-thickness rotator cuff tears.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]