No abstract

Objective: Shoulder pain and disability are mostly seen following rotator cuff rupture. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair becomes a gold standard treatment for rotator cuff rupture when conservative treatment fails. Comparing functional results, retear rates and reoperation rates of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in terms of single-row versus double row techniques is our aim in this study. Material and Method: Overall, 174 arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery patients were specified into 2 groups. Group 1 consists of 81 patients underwent single-row repair and group 2 consists of 93 patients consisted of transosseos equivalent technique double row. We evaluated demographic data and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Constant Murley, Visual analogue scale and 36-item Short Form subscale scores. Results: Mean follow-up time was 14.08±4.77 months. ASES, CM and VAS following ARCR were similar between two groups. Some of SF-36 subscale score improvements after operation are significantly better in group 2; role limitations due to physical health (p=0.041), energy/fatigue (p=0.026), emotional well-being (p=0.017), pain (p=0.010), general health (p=0.037). Re-rupture rates were significantly different. In group 1 re-rupture rate was 13.6% and for group 2 it was 1.1% (p=0.001). Conclusion:Lower re-rupture rates, and improved quality of life outcomes at short-term follow-up can be obtained by arthroscopic double-row repair. We suggest that the double-row technique can be considered for patients who have medium to large rotator cuff tears for lower re-rupture rates and some quality of life outcomes.

Comparing the outcomes of arthroscopic tenodesis versus tenotomy for the treatment of the long head of biceps tendon pathologies during supraspinatus tendon repair.