Current Concepts in Rotator Cuff Repair Techniques: Biomechanical, Functional, and Structural Outcomes

Abstract

There is substantial evidence indicating that double-row (DR) repair restores more of the anatomic rotator cuff footprint and is biomechanically superior to single-row (SR) repair. Transosseous-equivalent (TOE) techniques have shown biomechanical advantages when compared with traditional DR, including increased contact at the rotator cuff footprint, higher pressure at the tendon-bone interface, and increased failure strength. Several meta-analyses of evidence level 1 and 2 studies have shown a lower rate of failed/incomplete healing when DR repair was compared with SR repair types. There is some limited evidence that TOE techniques improve healing rates in large and massive tears as compared with SR and DR. Overall, most level 1 and 2 studies have failed to prove a significant difference between SR and DR repairs in terms of clinical outcomes. However, most studies include only short-term follow-up, minimizing the impact that the higher rate of retears/failed healing seen with SR repairs can have in the long term. There are no high-quality clinical studies comparing different DR configurations, and there are currently not enough clinical data to determine the functional advantages of various DR technique modifications over one another. Although numerous biomechanical and clinical studies comparing different rotator cuff repair techniques have been published in the past decade, none has achieved universal acceptance. It is essential for the orthopaedic surgeon to know in detail the available literature to be able to apply the most appropriate and cost-effective technique in terms of healing and functional outcomes. This review provides a critical analysis of the comparative biomechanical and clinical studies among SR, DR, and TOE techniques reported in the literature in the past decade.

Keywords: biomechanical; functional; rotator cuff repair; single row- double row; structural outcomes; transosseous equivalent.