Home About Journal AHEAD OF PRINT Current Issue Back Issues Instructions Submission Search Subscribe Blog    
Login 

Users Online: 24 
Print this page  Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2010  |  Volume : 44  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 308-313

Clinical outcomes of arthroscopic single and double row repair in full thickness rotator cuff tears


Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Daejon St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Korea

Correspondence Address:
Mohamed Shafi
520-2, Deahung-Dong, Joong-Ku, Daejeon, 302-803, South Korea
Korea
Login to access the Email id


DOI: 10.4103/0019-5413.65160

PMID: 20697485

Get Permissions

Background: There has been a recent interest in the double row repair method for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair following favourable biomechanical results reported by some studies. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical results of arthroscopic single row and double row repair methods in the full-thickness rotator cuff tears. Materials and Methods: 22 patients of arthroscopic single row repair (group I) and 25 patients who underwent double row repair (group II) from March 2003 to March 2005 were retrospectively evaluated and compared for the clinical outcomes. The mean age was 58 years and 56 years respectively for group I and II. The average follow-up in the two groups was 24 months. The evaluation was done by using the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) rating scale and the shoulder index of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES). Results: In Group I, the mean ASES score increased from 30.48 to 87.40 and the mean ASES score increased from 32.00 to 91.45 in the Group II. The mean UCLA score increased from the preoperative 12.23 to 30.82 in Group I and from 12.20 to 32.40 in Group II. Each method has shown no statistical clinical differences between two methods, but based on the sub scores of UCLA score, the double row repair method yields better results for the strength, and it gives more satisfaction to the patients than the single row repair method. Conclusions: Comparing the two methods, double row repair group showed better clinical results in recovering strength and gave more satisfaction to the patients but no statistical clinical difference was found between 2 methods.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1594    
    Printed73    
    Emailed3    
    PDF Downloaded90    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 4    

Recommend this journal