Summary of Meta-Analyses Dealing with Single-Row versus Double-Row Repair Techniques for Rotator Cuff Tears

Area of Science:

• Orthopedic Surgery
• Sports Medicine
• Biomedical Engineering

Background:

• Rotator cuff repair (RCR) techniques, including single-row (SR) and double-row (DR) methods, are frequently compared in meta-analyses.
• Previous studies have investigated whether DR-RCR offers superior clinical outcomes and structural healing compared to SR-RCR.

Purpose of the Study:

• To synthesize findings from existing meta-analyses comparing SR-RCR and DR-RCR.
• To evaluate clinical outcomes and re-tear rates between the two surgical techniques.

Main Methods:

• A systematic literature search identified meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials comparing SR-RCR and DR-RCR.
• Eligibility criteria focused on studies assessing clinical and structural outcomes.

Main Results:

• Eight meta-analyses met the inclusion criteria, varying in study level.
• Four meta-analyses reported no significant clinical outcome differences between SR and DR-RCR.
• Four meta-analyses favored DR-RCR for tears larger than 3 cm, and six found DR-RCR superior for structural healing in these larger tears.

Conclusions:

• For small to medium rotator cuff tears, no significant clinical differences are observed between SR and DR repair in the short term.
• SR repairs demonstrate a higher re-tear rate compared to DR repairs.
• A trend suggests superior outcomes with DR repair for large to massive rotator cuff tears.