Single-Row Repair Versus Double-Row Repair in the Surgical Management of Achilles Insertional Tendinopathy: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Background: Approximately 6% of people will report Achilles tendon pain during their lifetime, and one-third of these individuals will have Achilles insertional tendinopathy (AIT). For patients who have failed conservative treatment, surgical repair is performed. Achilles tendon repair can occur through various techniques, including a single-row or double-row repair. Purpose: To determine if there are significant advantages to double-row repair over single-row repair with respect to biomechanical and clinical outcomes. Study design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. An electronic search of the EMBASE and PubMed databases was performed for all studies related to surgical treatment of AIT, which yielded 1431 unique results. These included both biomechanical and clinical studies. Clinical studies in which patients were not diagnosed with AIT, underwent surgery for repair of acute Achilles tendon rupture, or studies that included additional procedures such as a concomitant flexor hallucis longus transfer were excluded. Eligible studies were independently screened by 2 reviewers. A risk-of-bias assessment was conducted using the Cochrane Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies–of Interventions and risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials tools. Results: A total of 23 studies were included, 4 of which were biomechanical studies and 19 were clinical studies. Biomechanical comparison found that there was a significant advantage to using double-row versus single-row fixation with respect to load at yield (354.7 N vs 198.7 N; P = .01) and mean peak load (433.9 N vs 212 N; P = .042). There was no significant difference between double-row and single-row repair with respect to load to failure. Significant heterogeneity of the studies did not allow for a statistical comparison of the clinical outcomes between double-row and single-row repairs. Conclusion: Although biomechanical studies favor double-row repair for AIT, the current data available on the clinical outcomes are not sufficient to determine if there is a clinical advantage of double-row repair. Larger, prospective randomized controlled trials utilizing validated outcome measures are needed to further elucidate whether the biomechanical advantages associated with double-row repair also translate into improved patient-reported outcomes.