English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objectives: The effect of single row (SR) versus double row (DR) rotator cuff repair on functional outcomes was examined in a prospective randomized design. Methods: Fifty patients were randomized to DR or SR repairs; 39 patients (13 women, 26 men, 23 SR, 16 DR, age 62±7 yr) were assessed at an average of 2.2±1.6 yr after surgery (range 1-7 yr; tear size 17 medium, 13 large, 9 massive). The following data were recorded prior to surgery and at follow-up: Penn, ASES and Simple Shoulder Test (SST) scores; range of motion (ROM) for shoulder flexion, external rotation (ER) at 0º and 90º abduction, and internal rotation (IR) at 90º abduction; shoulder strength (Lafayette Manual Muscle Tester) in empty and full can tests, abduction and ER at 0º abduction. Treatment (SR vs. DR) by Time (pre-op vs. post-op) mixed model analysis of variance was used to assess the effect of rotator cuff repair. It was estimated that with 20 patients per group a 10-point difference in improvement in ASES scores between SR and DR treatments could be detected at an alpha level of 0.05 with 80% power. Results: Outcome Scores: RC repair markedly improved Penn, ASES and SST scores (P<0.001), with similar improvement between single versus double row repairs (Treatment by Time P=.49 to P=.67), and excellent scores at follow-up (Double Row vs. Single Row: Penn 91±11 vs. 91±12, P=.98; ASES 92±9 vs 87 ±15, P=.24; SST 11.2±1.2 vs. 11.4±1.0, P=.58). ROM: Patients with DR repairs lost ER ROM at 0º abduction (pre-op to final follow-up 7±10º loss, P=.013). ER ROM did not change with SR repair (3.9±15.6º gain, P=.24; Treatment by Time P=.017). This effect was not apparent for ER ROM at 90º abduction (Treatment by Time P=.26). IR ROM improved from pre-op to final follow-up (P<0.01, SR 17±18º, DR 13±23º, Treatment by Time P=.31). Strength: RC repair markedly improved strength in Empty Can (51%), Full Can (54%), Abduction (45%) and ER (31 %) strength (all P<.001), with no difference between SR and DR repairs (P=.54 to P=.81). Outcomes were not adversely affected by RC tear size, retraction, gender, or BMI. Patients <60 yo had better ASES scores than older patients (96±9 vs. 87±13, P=.021) but an age effect was not apparent for Penn (P=.14) or SST (P=.17). Conclusion: Patients had excellent outcomes regardless of whether they had a SR or DR repair. Rotator cuff repair, and subsequent rehabilitation, markedly improved shoulder strength. DR repair was associated with a loss of ER ROM but this loss did not impact other outcome measures.

Functional Outcomes after Double Row Versus Single Row Rotator Cuff Repair