Biomechanical Comparison of Single- Versus Double-Row Capsulolabral Repair for Shoulder Instability: A Review.
Background: The glenohumeral joint is the most commonly dislocated joint in the body. Failure rates of capsulolabral repair have been reported to be approximately 8%. Recent focus has been on restoration of the capsulolabral complex by a double-row capsulolabral repair technique in an effort to decrease redislocation rates after arthroscopic capsulolabral repair.
Purpose: To present a review of the biomechanical literature comparing single- versus double-row capsulolabral repairs and discuss the previous case series of double-row fixation.
Study Design: Narrative review.
Methods: A simple review of the literature was performed by PubMed search. Only biomechanical studies comparing single- versus double-row capsulolabral repair were included for review. Only those case series and descriptive techniques with clinical results for double-row repair were included in the discussion.
Results: Biomechanical comparisons evaluating the native footprint of the labrum demonstrated significantly superior restoration of the footprint through double-row capsulolabral repair compared with single-row repair. Biomechanical comparisons of contact pressure at the repair interface, fracture displacement in bony Bankart lesion, load to failure, and decreased external rotation (suggestive of increased load to failure) were also significantly in favor of double- versus single-row repair. Recent descriptive techniques and case series of double-row fixation have demonstrated good clinical outcomes; however, no comparative clinical studies between single- and double-row repair have assessed functional outcomes.
Conclusion: The superiority of double-row capsulolabral repair versus single-row repair remains uncertain because comparative studies assessing clinical outcomes have yet to be performed.
Yousif MJ, Bicos J. Biomechanical Comparison of Single- Versus Double-Row Capsulolabral Repair for Shoulder Instability: A Review. Orthop J Sports Med. 2017 Dec;5(12):2325967117742355. doi: 10.1177/2325967117742355. eCollection 2017 Dec. Review. PubMed PMID: 29230427; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5718312.