Table 2.

Overview of human studies evaluating surgical techniques of rotator cuff repair.

Study	Study type	Sample size	Follow-up	Results and conclusions
McCormick et al.59	Retrospective cohort	n = 63	Minimum two years	Arthroscopic RCR demonstrated significant improvement in subjective and objective outcomes at minimum two-year follow-up with all three techniques (SR, DR, TOE).
Xu et al.34	Meta-analysis	Nine studies (five RCTs)	N/A	DR RCR technique provides a significantly lower retear rate, higher ASES score, increased IR ROM compared to SR techniques.
Chen et al.35	Systematic review	Six RCTs	N/A	DR RCR significantly higher rate of intact tendon healing compared to SR, especially in large to massive rotator cuff tears. No clinical difference in functional improvement between techniques.
Koh et al.60	RCT	n = 71	Two and six weeks, three, six, 12, and 24 months	Retear rates and clinical outcomes for DR RCR with one additional medial suture anchor was not significantly different than SR RCR with two lateral suture anchors in medium to large tears.
Duquin et al.36	Systematic review	n = 1252 (23 Studies)	>1 year	DR RCR demonstrates significantly lower retear rates than SR technique in tears >1 cm.
Burks et al.61	RCT	n = 40	Six weeks, three months, one year	No clinical or MRI differences noted between SR or DR RCR techniques.

ASES: American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon; DR: double row; IR: internal rotation; MRI: magnetic resonance imaging; RCT: randomized control trial; RCR: rotator cuff repair; ROM: range of motion; SR: single row; TOE: transosseous equivalent.