Single-Row Or Double-Row Fixation Technique For Full-Thickness Rotator Cuff Tears: A Meta-Analysis

Qiang Zhang,Heng'an Ge,Jiaojiao Zhou,Chaoqun Yuan,Kai Chen,Biao Cheng
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0068515
IF: 3.7
2013-01-01
PLoS ONE
Abstract:Background: The single-row and double-row fixation techniques have been widely used for rotator cuff tears. However, whether the double-row technique produces superior clinical or anatomic outcomes is still considered controversial. This study aims to use meta-analysis to compare the clinical and anatomical outcomes between the two techniques.Methods: The Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane library databases were searched for relevant studies published before November 1, 2012. Studies clearly reporting a comparison of the single-row and double-row techniques were selected. The Constant, ASES, and UCLA scale systems and the rotator cuff integrity rate were evaluated. The weighted mean differences and relative risks were calculated using a fixed-effects or random-effects model.Results: Eight studies were included in this meta-analysis. The weighted mean differences of the ASES (-0.84; P = 0.04; I-2 = 0%) and UCLA (-0.75; P = 0.007; I-2 = 0%) scales were significantly low in the single-row group for full-thickness rotator cuff tears. For tear sizes smaller than 3 cm, no significant difference was found between the groups no matter in Constant (P = 0.95; I-2 = 0%), ASES (P = 0.77; I-2 = 0%), or UCLA (P = 0.24; I-2 = 13%) scales. For tear sizes larger than 3 cm, the ASES (-1.95; P = 0.001; I-2 = 49%) and UCLA (-1.17; P = 0.006; I-2 = 0%) scales were markedly lower in the single-row group. The integrity of the rotator cuff (0.81; P = 0.0004; I-2 = 10%) was greater and the partial thickness retear rate (1.93; P = 0.007; I-2 = 10%) was less in the double-row group. Full-thickness retears showed no difference between the groups (P = 0.15; I-2 = 0%).Conclusion: The meta-analysis suggests that the double-row fixation technique increases post-operative rotator cuff integrity and improves the clinical outcomes, especially for full-thickness rotator cuff tears larger than 3 cm. For tear sizes smaller than 3 cm, there was no difference in the clinical outcomes between the two techniques.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?