title: Equivalent clinical results of arthroscopic single-row and double-row suture anchor repair for rotator cuff tears: a randomized controlled trial.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Restoring the anatomical footprint may improve the healing and mechanical strength of repaired tendons. A double row of suture anchors increases the tendon-bone contact area, reconstituting a more anatomical configuration of the rotator cuff footprint.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  There is no difference in clinical and imaging outcome between single-row and double-row suture anchor technique repairs of rotator cuff tears.
  
  
  METHODS
  Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.
  
  
  METHODS
  The authors recruited 60 patients. In 30 patients, rotator cuff repair was performed with a single-row suture anchor technique (group 1). In the other 30 patients, rotator cuff repair was performed with a double-row suture anchor technique (group 2).
  
  
  RESULTS
  Eight patients (4 in the single-row anchor repair group and 4 in the double-row anchor repair group) did not return at the final follow-up. At the 2-year follow-up, no statistically significant differences were seen with respect to the University of California, Los Angeles score and range of motion values. At 2-year follow-up, postoperative magnetic resonance arthrography in group 1 showed intact tendons in 14 patients, partial-thickness defects in 10 patients, and full-thickness defects in 2 patients. In group 2, magnetic resonance arthrography showed an intact rotator cuff in 18 patients, partial-thickness defects in 7 patients, and full-thickness defects in 1 patient.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Single- and double-row techniques provide comparable clinical outcome at 2 years. A double-row technique produces a mechanically superior construct compared with the single-row method in restoring the anatomical footprint of the rotator cuff, but these mechanical advantages do not translate into superior clinical performance.
authors.affiliation: Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Campus Biomedico University, Via Longoni, 83 Rome, Italy. osa14@keele.ac.uk
authors.forename: Francesco
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Franceschi
authors.forename: Laura
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Ruzzini
authors.forename: Umile Giuseppe
authors.initials: UG
authors.lastname: Longo
authors.forename: Francesca Maria
authors.initials: FM
authors.lastname: Martina
authors.forename: Bruno Beomonte
authors.initials: BB
authors.lastname: Zobel
authors.forename: Nicola
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Maffulli
authors.forename: Vincenzo
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Denaro
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D001182:Arthroscopy / Q000592:standards*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D015141:Los Angeles; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D017006:Rotator Cuff / Q000601:surgery*; D000070636:Rotator Cuff Injuries; D053441:Suture Anchors; D013536:Suture Techniques