Table 1 Characteristics of studies included
| Year | Sample size (ER/DR) | Female (%) | Mean age (years) | Intervention | Country | Study design | Follow-up (month) | Relevant outcome | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ER | DR | |||||||||
| Cha et al [12] | 2016 | 11/53 | 39.1% | ER63.7 ± 8.4 DR62.5 ± 7.6 | Single-layer repair | Dual-layer double-row repair or dual-layer suture bridge repair | Korea | Retrospective study | ER28.1 ± 10.5 DR26.2 ± 9.7 | VAS score; constant score; UCLA score; postoperative range of motion; retear rate |
| Kim et al [13] | 2016 | 48/34 | 67.1% | ER65.2 (45–76) DR65.5 (47–78) | Conventional en masse repair | Separate double-layer double-row repair | Korea | RCT study | ER25.8 ± 1.5 DR25.9 ± 2.2 | VAS score; constant score; ASES score; SST score; postoperative range of motion; retear rate |
| Ren et al [14] | 2017 | 26/28 | 57.4% | ER55.3 ± 8.4 DR53.6 ± 6.1 | Whole-layer repair | Separate double-layer repair | China | RCT study | 12 | VAS score; constant score; ASES score; UCLA score; postoperative range of motion; retear rate |
| Nakamizo et al [15] | 2018 | 52/46 | 51.0% | ER65.8 ± 8.5 DR64.1 ± 9.4 | En masse suture-bridging | Dual-layer suture-bridging | Japan | Retrospective study | ER29.0 ± 9.1 DR27.6 ± 3.3 | VAS score; UCLA score; SST score; postoperative range of motion; retear rate |
| Jia et al [16] | 2019 | 28/29 | 42.1% | ER54.0 ± 8.3 DR52.1 ± 7.5 | Whole-layer repair | Dual-layer suture-bridging | China | Retrospective study | 23.3 (21–24) | VAS score; UCLA score; ASES score; constant score; postoperative range of motion; retear rate |