Acta ortopedica brasileira · 2026
EVIDENCE-BASED REVIEWS & RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE BRAZILIAN SOCIETY OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY: DOUBLE-ROW REPAIR FOR LARGE ROTATOR CUFF TEARS.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Malavolta Eduardo Angeli, Zanesco Leonardo, Pinto Gustavo de Mello Ribeiro, Amaral Marcus Vinícius Galvão, Caixeta Thiago Barbosa, Simmer Jair, da Silva Luciana Andrade, Campos Marcelo Costa de Oliveira
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Large (≥ 3 cm) rotator cuff tears have a poorer prognosis, and the optimal arthroscopic repair configuration (single-row vs double-row) remains controversial.
METHODS: We performed an evidence-based review of systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials comparing arthroscopic double-row and single-row repair for tears ≥ 3 cm. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and BVS were searched through May 2025. Only studies reporting size-stratified outcomes were included. Methodological quality was assessed, and the certainty of evidence was graded using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS: Two high-quality systematic reviews and five randomized trials provided separate data for tears ≥ 3 cm. Double-row repair showed better functional outcomes than single-row repair, with improved ASES (MD -3.09; 95% CI -6.19 to 0.02) and UCLA scores (MD -1.47; 95% CI -2.21 to -0.72) (moderate-quality evidence). Limited randomized data suggested higher healing rates with double-row repair (OR 3.44; 95% CI 1.09-10.88; low-quality evidence). Pain alone did not differ meaningfully beyond the immediate postoperative period.
CONCLUSIONS: For rotator cuff tears ≥ 3 cm, arthroscopic double-row repair provides superior functional outcomes and likely higher structural healing versus single-row repair, supporting its preferential use in large and massive tears, with decisions individualized to patient and lesion characteristics. Level of evidence II; Systematic review.
METHODS: We performed an evidence-based review of systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials comparing arthroscopic double-row and single-row repair for tears ≥ 3 cm. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and BVS were searched through May 2025. Only studies reporting size-stratified outcomes were included. Methodological quality was assessed, and the certainty of evidence was graded using the GRADE approach.
RESULTS: Two high-quality systematic reviews and five randomized trials provided separate data for tears ≥ 3 cm. Double-row repair showed better functional outcomes than single-row repair, with improved ASES (MD -3.09; 95% CI -6.19 to 0.02) and UCLA scores (MD -1.47; 95% CI -2.21 to -0.72) (moderate-quality evidence). Limited randomized data suggested higher healing rates with double-row repair (OR 3.44; 95% CI 1.09-10.88; low-quality evidence). Pain alone did not differ meaningfully beyond the immediate postoperative period.
CONCLUSIONS: For rotator cuff tears ≥ 3 cm, arthroscopic double-row repair provides superior functional outcomes and likely higher structural healing versus single-row repair, supporting its preferential use in large and massive tears, with decisions individualized to patient and lesion characteristics. Level of evidence II; Systematic review.