To unlock this feature and to subscribe to our weekly evidence emails, please create a FREE orthoEvidence account.

SIGNUP

Already Have an Account?

Loading...
Visit our Evidence-Based Covid-19 Website and Stay Up to Date with the latest Research.
Ace Report Cover

No difference in functional outcome amid single and double-row rotator cuff repair methods

Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Ace Report Cover
August 2013

No difference in functional outcome amid single and double-row rotator cuff repair methods

Vol: 2| Issue: 7| Number:589| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Meta-analysis/Systematic Review
OE Level Evidence:1
Journal Level of Evidence:N/A

Does double-row rotator cuff repair improve functional outcome of patients compared with single-row technique? A systematic review

Am J Sports Med. 2012 May;40(5):1176-85. doi: 10.1177/0363546511428866. Epub 2011 Dec 8

Contributing Authors:
AM DeHaan TW Axelrad E Kaye L Silvestri B Puskas TE Foster

Did you know you're eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report? Click Here

Synopsis

In this systematic review 7 studies (consisting of 446 participants) examining the functional outcome between single-row and double-row rotator cuff repair techniques were evaluated. Results displayed that, even though the double-row repairs seemed to result in a lower radiographic retear rate, the overall functional outcome of the two types of repair methods did not differ significantly from one ...

CME Image

Did you know that you’re eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report!

LEARN MORE

Join the Conversation

Please Login or Join to leave comments.

Learn about our AI Driven
High Impact Search Feature

High Impact Icon

Our AI driven High Impact metric calculates the impact an article will have by considering both the publishing journal and the content of the article itself. Built using the latest advances in natural language processing, OE High Impact predicts an article’s future number of citations better than impact factor alone.

Continue