Objectives: We critically review the existing studies comparing the features of single- and double-row repair, and discuss suggestions about the surgical indications for the two repair techniques.
Data sources: All currently available studies comparing the biomechanical, clinical and the biological features of single and double row.
Main results: Biomechanically, the double-row repair has greater performances in terms of higher initial fixation strength, greater footprint coverage, improved contact area and pressure, decreased gap formation, and higher load to failure. Results of clinical studies demonstrate no significantly better outcomes for double-row compared to single-row repair. Better results are achieved by double-row repair for larger lesions (tear size 2.5-3.5 cm).
Conclusions: Considering the lack of statistically significant differences between the two techniques and that the double row is a high cost and a high surgical skill-dependent technique, we suggest using the double-row technique only in strictly selected patients.
Copyright © 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel.