***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: Objectives : The effect of single row ( SR ) versus double row ( DR ) rotator cuff repair on functional outcomes was examined in a prospect i ve r and omized design . Methods : Fifty patients were r and omized to DR or SR repairs ; 39 patients ( 13 women , 26 men , 23 SR , 16 DR , age 62±7 yr ) were assessed at an average of 2.2±1.6 yr after surgery ( range 1 - 7 yr ; tear size 17 medium , 13 large , 9 massive ) . The following data were recorded prior to surgery and at follow-up : Penn , ASES and Simple Shoulder Test ( SST ) scores ; range of motion ( ROM ) for shoulder flexion , external rotation ( ER ) at 0º and 90º abduction , and internal rotation ( IR ) at 90º abduction ; shoulder strength ( Lafayette Manual Muscle Tester ) in empty and full can tests , abduction and ER at 0º abduction . Treatment ( SR vs. DR ) by Time ( pre-op vs. post-op ) mixed model analysis of variance was used to assess the effect of rotator cuff repair . It was estimated that with 20 patients per group a 10-point difference in improvement in ASES scores between SR and DR treatments could be detected at an alpha level of 0.05 with 80 % power . Results : Outcome Scores : RC repair markedly improved Penn , ASES and SST scores ( P<0.001 ) , with similar improvement between single versus double row repairs ( Treatment by Time P=.49 to P=.67 ) , and excellent scores at follow-up ( Double Row vs. Single Row : Penn 91±11 vs. 91±12 , P=.98 ; ASES 92±9 vs 87 ±15 , P=.24 ; SST 11.2±1.2 vs. 11.4±1.0 , P=.58 ) . ROM : Patients  with DR repairs lost ER ROM at 0º abduction ( pre-op to final follow-up 7±10º loss , P=.013 ) . ER ROM did not change with SR repair ( 3.9±15.6º gain , P=.24 ; Treatment by Time P=.017 ) . This effect was not apparent for ER ROM at 90º abduction ( Treatment by Time P=.26 ) . IR ROM improved from pre-op to final follow-up ( P<0.01 , SR 17±18º , DR 13±23º , Treatment by Time P=.31 ) . Strength :  RC repair markedly improved strength in Empty Can ( 51 % ) , Full Can ( 54 % ) , Abduction ( 45 % ) and ER ( 31 % ) strength ( all P<.001 ) , with no difference between SR and DR repairs ( P=.54 to P=.81 ) . Outcomes were not adversely affected by RC tear size , retraction , gender , or BMI . Patients < 60 yo had better ASES scores than older patients ( 96±9 vs. 87±13 , P=.021 ) but an age effect was not apparent for Penn ( P=.14 ) or SST ( P=.17 ) . Conclusion : Patients had excellent outcomes regardless of whether they had a SR or DR repair . Rotator cuff repair , and subsequent rehabilitation , markedly improved shoulder strength . DR repair was associated with a loss of ER ROM but this loss did not impact other outcome measures BACKGROUND Controversy exists regarding the optimal technique for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair . The purpose of this multicenter , r and omized , double-blind controlled study was to compare the functional outcomes and healing rates after use of single-row and double-row suture techniques for repair of the rotator cuff . METHODS Ninety patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair  were r and omized to receive either a single-row or a double-row repair . The primary objective was to compare the Western Ontario rotator cuff index ( WORC ) score at twenty-four months . Secondary objectives included comparison of the constant and american shoulder and elbow surgeons ( ASES ) scores and strength between groups . Anatomical outcomes were assessed with magnetic resonance imaging ( MRI ) or ultrasonography to determine the postoperative healing rates . RESULTS Baseline demographic data including age ( p = 0.29 ) , sex ( p = 0.68 ) , affected side ( p = 0.39 ) , and rotator cuff tear size ( p = 0.28 ) did not differ between groups . The WORC score did not differ significantly between groups at any time point ( p = 0.48 at baseline , p = 0.089 at three months , p = 0.52 at six months , p = 0.83 at twelve months , and p = 0.60 at twenty-four months ) . The WORC score at each postoperative time point was significantly better than the baseline value . The Constant score , ASES score , and strength did not differ significantly between groups at any time point . Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that a smaller initial tear size and double-row fixation were associated with higher healing rates . CONCLUSIONS No significant differences in functional or quality -of-life outcomes were identified between single-row and double-row fixation techniques . A smaller initial tear size and a double-row fixation technique were associated with higher healing rates as assessed with ultrasonography or MRI . LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with single-row and double-row techniques because research has demonstrated the superiority of double-row repair from a biological and mechanical point of view but there is no evidence of clinical superiority . Methods A total of 160 patients with a full-thickness rotator cuff tear underwent arthroscopic repair with suture anchors .  They were r and omised into two groups of 80 patients according to the repair technique : single-row ( group 1 ) and double-row ( group 2 ) . Results were evaluated by use of the University of California , Los Angeles ( UCLA ) , American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons ( ASES ) and Constant question naires , the Shoulder Strength Index ( SSI ) and range of motion . Follow-up time was two years . Magnetic resonance imaging ( MRI ) studies were performed on each shoulder preoperatively and two years after repair . Results One hundred per cent of the patients were followed up . All measurements showed significant improvement compared with the preoperative status . The UCLA score showed significant improvement in group 2 . In over 30-mm tears UCLA and ASES showed significant differences . SSI showed significant improvement in group 2 . Range of motion showed significant improvements in flexion and abduction in group 2 . In under 30-mm tears group 2 showed also significant improvement in internal and external rotation . In MRI studies there were no significant differences . Conclusions At two years follow-up the double-row repair technique showed a significant difference in clinical outcome compared with single-row repair and this was even more significative in over 30-mm tears . No MRI differences were observed Adequate reporting of r and omized , controlled trials ( RCTs ) is necessary to allow accurate critical appraisal of the validity and applicability of the results . The CONSORT ( Consoli date d St and ards of Reporting Trials ) Statement , a 22-item checklist and flow diagram , is intended to address this problem by improving the reporting of RCTs . However , some specific issues that apply to trials of nonpharmacologic treatments ( for example , surgery , technical interventions , devices , rehabilitation , psychotherapy , and behavioral intervention ) are not specifically addressed in the CONSORT Statement . Furthermore , considerable evidence suggests that the reporting of nonpharmacologic trials still needs improvement . Therefore , the CONSORT group developed an extension of the CONSORT Statement for trials assessing nonpharmacologic treatments . A consensus meeting of 33 experts was organized in Paris , France , in February 2006 , to develop an extension of the CONSORT Statement for trials of nonpharmacologic treatments . The participants extended 11 items from the CONSORT Statement , added 1 item , and developed a modified flow diagram . To allow adequate underst and ing and implementation of the CONSORT extension , the CONSORT group developed this elaboration and explanation document from a review of the literature to provide examples of adequate reporting . This extension , in conjunction with the main CONSORT Statement and other CONSORT extensions , should help to improve the reporting of RCTs performed in this field Background Double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair has become more popular , and some studies have shown better footprint coverage and improved biomechanics of the repair . Hypothesis Double-row rotator cuff repair leads to superior cuff integrity and early clinical results compared with single-row repair . Study Design R and omized controlled trial ; Level of evidence , 1 . Methods Forty patients were r and omized to either single-row or double-row rotator cuff repair at the time of surgical intervention . Patients were followed with clinical measures ( UCLA , Constant , WORC , SANE , ASES , as well as range of motion , internal rotation strength , and external rotation strength ) . Magnetic resonance imaging ( MRI ) studies were performed on each shoulder preoperatively , 6 weeks , 3 months , and 1 year after repair . Results Mean anteroposterior tear size by MRI was 1.8 cm . A mean of 2.25 anchors for single row ( SR ) and 3.2 for double row ( DR ) were used . There were 2 retears at 1 year in each group . There were 2 additional cases that had severe thinning in the DR repair group at 1 year . The MRI measurements of footprint coverage , tendon thickness , and tendon signal showed no significant differences between the 2 repair groups . At 1 year , there were no differences in any of the postoperative measures of motion or strength . At 1 year , mean WORC ( SR , 84.8 ; DR , 87.9 ) , Constant ( SR , 77.8 ; DR , 74.4 ) , ASES ( SR , 85.9 ; DR , 85.5 ) , UCLA ( SR , 28.6 ; DR , 29.5 ) , and SANE ( SR , 90.9 ; DR , 89.9 ) scores showed no significant differences between groups . Conclusions No clinical or MRI differences were seen between patients repaired with a SR or DR technique Background : Recently , an accelerated rehabilitation protocol after rotator cuff ( RC ) repair has been proposed for patients at risk of postoperative stiffness . Purpose : To investigate , in patients undergoing early accelerated mobilization , whether  double-row ( DR ) repair provides better clinical outcomes and a lower retear rate compared with single-row ( SR ) configurations . Study Design : R and omized controlled trial ; Level of evidence , 1 . Methods : A total of 58 patients were r and omized to undergo either SR or DR repair .  After 2 years of follow-up , 12 men and 13 women ( mean age , 61.8 years ; range , 52 - 67 years ) in the SR group and 15 men and 10 women ( mean age , 58.9 years ; range , 51 - 69 years ) in the  DR group were evaluated . To assess the retear rate , magnetic resonance imaging of the shoulder was performed at 2-year follow-up . The clinical evaluation was based on the modified University of California , Los Angeles ( UCLA ) shoulder score and range of motion ( ROM ) measurements . Results : Magnetic resonance arthrography showed a significantly lower full-thickness retear rate for the DR group than for the SR group ( 8 % vs 24 % , respectively ; P < .05 ) . Conversely , at both 6-month and 2-year follow-up , there was no statistically significant difference in terms of the rate of stiffness in the SR and DR groups ( 8 % vs 12 % and 0 % vs 0 % , respectively ; P > .05 ) . No clinical differences were recorded regarding the UCLA score ( SR group : mean , 32.6 [ range , 30 - 35 ] ; DR group : mean , 33.3 [ range , 29 - 35 ] ; P = .61 ) and ROM . Conclusion : In selected patients at a high risk of shoulder stiffness and therefore necessitating accelerated postoperative rehabilitation , DR repair of the RC could lower retear rates PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and the retear rates of arthroscopic single-row ( SR ) and double-row ( DR ) suture anchor repair in 2- to 4-cm rotator cuff tears . METHODS From 2005 to 2007 , 71 patients with a 2- to 4-cm rotator cuff tear ( proven by arthroscopy ) were prospect ively r and omized to  SR  and DR repair groups . Of these patients , 62 ( 31 in each group ) were available for evaluation at final follow-up . Demographic data , clinical scores , mean surgical times , and patient satisfaction were compared . Retear rates and clinical scores were also analyzed for 47 patients who underwent follow-up magnetic resonance imaging .  RESULTS Comparisons of demographic data , tear size on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging , global fatty degeneration index , and concomitant procedures showed no differences between the SR and DR groups . Preoperative clinical scores were significantly improved postoperatively in both groups . No intergroup differences in pain visual analog scale , American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons , Constant , or University of California , Los Angeles scores were found at final follow-up . Only mean surgical time was significantly different between the 2 groups . In the SR group , there were 4 full-thickness retears and 11 partial-thickness retears , whereas in the DR group , there were 6 full-thickness retears and 1 partial-thickness retear . However , despite numerical differences , these differences were not statistically different . Statistically , there were no significant differences both in full-thickness re 
    Output:
    
Postoperative ASES , Constant , WORC , and SANE scores showed nonsignificant slightly better function of DR groups .
Conclusion Within the domain of level I mid-term and short-term studies , DR repair showed significant better UCLA score only . (
ASES , Constant , WORC , and SANE scores showed no significance . )
This may correlate weakly with the significant lower partial-thickness re-tear rates of DR repairs .
In contrary , long-term level III studies showed a direct correlation of both functional outcomes and cuff structural integrity , with significant superiority of DR over SR repair techniques .