SINGLE-ROW VS DOUBLE ROW REPAIR - PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES

Seven high quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing single row versus double row constructs for full-thickness rotator cuff tears reported significant improvement in all patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at final follow-up; however, there were no clinically meaningful difference in PROs between the two repair groups (Franceschi, 2016; Franceschi, 2007; Grasso, 2009; Heuberer, 2020; Koh, 2011; Lapner, 2012; Lapner, 2021(a)). Two moderate quality RCTs reported significant improvement in PROs (UCLA scores, ASES scores, or strength testing) favoring double row repair in patients with >3cm full-thickness rotator cuff tears (Ma, 2012; Carbonel, 2012). Aydin, 2010 reported no difference in the Constant scores or complication rates between the two groups of single row (N=34) and double row (N=34) repair at final follow-up. Barber, 2016 also reported no difference in all PROs between single row (N=20) compared to double row (N=20) repair for full-thickness cuff tears less than 3cm augmented with platelet-rich plasma fibrin membrane. The failure rate at final follow-up was also similar between both groups, 3 out of 20 (15%) in each group. Furthermore, Burks, 2009, Franceschi et al, Koh et al, and Lapner et al also found no clinically meaningful difference in the PROs between single row and double row repair for full-thickness rotator cuff tears at final follow-up. Ma et al also reported similar UCLA and ASES scores at final follow-up comparing single to double row repair. However, in the subset of patients with >3cm full-thickness tears, the authors reported significantly better shoulder strength in abduction and external rotation with double row repair at final follow-up. In the largest RCT comparing the outcome of single row versus double row repair, Carbonel et al reported similar PROs in patients with 1cm to 3cm tears. However, in patients with > 3cm tears, double row repair showed superior results in both UCLA and ASES scores compared to single row repair.

Risks and Harms of Implementing this Recommendation
There is no harm to patients by implementing this recommendation for small to medium size rotator cuff tears. However, in patients with larger rotator cuff tears (>3cm), single row vertical mattress repair may result in inferior PROs and higher failure rates compared to double row repair constructs.

Future Research
Future research needs to be performed to evaluate for both PROs and failure rates based on imaging and reoperation rates between single row compared to double row repair for larger full-thickness rotator cuff tears >3cm in size.