Rotator cuff debridement compared with rotator cuff repair in arthroscopic treatment of calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Q3 Medicine
D González-Martín, M Garrido-Miguel, G de Cabo, J M Lomo-Garrote, M Leyes, L E Hernández-Castillejo
{"title":"Rotator cuff debridement compared with rotator cuff repair in arthroscopic treatment of calcifying tendinitis of the shoulder: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"D González-Martín, M Garrido-Miguel, G de Cabo, J M Lomo-Garrote, M Leyes, L E Hernández-Castillejo","doi":"10.1016/j.recot.2023.08.015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Although conservative treatment of calcific tendinopathy has a high success rate, arthroscopic excision of the calcific deposit is occasionally necessary. Controversy exists as to whether the remaining rotator cuff defect can be left in situ or should be repaired to achieve better functional outcomes. This study aimed to compare the results of debridement versus debridement combined with suturing in arthroscopic surgery for calcific tendinopathy.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from inception to February 2023 for articles on arthroscopic treatment of calcific tendinopathy. Functional outcomes (VAS, ASES, UCLA, and Constant) and the number of complications were analyzed. The effect size was calculated using Cohen's d-index.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-one studies were included, including a total of 1172 patients aged between 44.7 and 55 years. The mean follow-up time was 24.7 months. The combined ES estimates for the total score of the VAS, ASES, UCLA, and Constant scales were very strong (>1.0) for both debridement and combined debridement with suture. The ES estimates for the number of total complications were 1.75 (95% CI: 0.08-3.43, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) for debridement and 9.07 (95% CI: -0.03-18.17, I<sup>2</sup> = 50.4%) for combined debridement with suture.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both arthroscopic procedures improve the total score significantly on the EVA, ASES, UCLA, and Constant scales. However, a higher proportion of complications was observed in the group that performed suturing. In this regard, we must consider whether it is really necessary to repair all partial tears after the calcified deposits removal.</p>","PeriodicalId":39664,"journal":{"name":"Revista Espanola de Cirugia Ortopedica y Traumatologia","volume":" ","pages":"91-103"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Espanola de Cirugia Ortopedica y Traumatologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.recot.2023.08.015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Although conservative treatment of calcific tendinopathy has a high success rate, arthroscopic excision of the calcific deposit is occasionally necessary. Controversy exists as to whether the remaining rotator cuff defect can be left in situ or should be repaired to achieve better functional outcomes. This study aimed to compare the results of debridement versus debridement combined with suturing in arthroscopic surgery for calcific tendinopathy.

Methodology: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from inception to February 2023 for articles on arthroscopic treatment of calcific tendinopathy. Functional outcomes (VAS, ASES, UCLA, and Constant) and the number of complications were analyzed. The effect size was calculated using Cohen's d-index.

Results: Twenty-one studies were included, including a total of 1172 patients aged between 44.7 and 55 years. The mean follow-up time was 24.7 months. The combined ES estimates for the total score of the VAS, ASES, UCLA, and Constant scales were very strong (>1.0) for both debridement and combined debridement with suture. The ES estimates for the number of total complications were 1.75 (95% CI: 0.08-3.43, I2 = 0%) for debridement and 9.07 (95% CI: -0.03-18.17, I2 = 50.4%) for combined debridement with suture.

Conclusions: Both arthroscopic procedures improve the total score significantly on the EVA, ASES, UCLA, and Constant scales. However, a higher proportion of complications was observed in the group that performed suturing. In this regard, we must consider whether it is really necessary to repair all partial tears after the calcified deposits removal.

肩关节镜治疗钙化性肌腱炎时肩袖清创与肩袖修复的比较:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
虽然保守治疗钙化肌腱病的成功率很高,但偶尔也需要关节镜切除钙化沉积物。对于剩余的肩袖缺损是否可以保留原位或是否应该修复以获得更好的功能结果存在争议。本研究旨在比较关节镜下手术治疗钙化性肌腱病变时清创与清创联合缝合的效果。方法:检索MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane图书馆和Web of Science从成立到2023年2月关于关节镜治疗钙化肌腱病的文章。分析功能结局(VAS、as、UCLA和Constant)和并发症数量。效应量使用Cohen's d-index计算。结果:纳入21项研究,共纳入1172例患者,年龄在44.7 ~ 55岁之间。平均随访时间为24.7个月。无论是清创还是联合清创加缝合,VAS、ASES、UCLA和Constant评分的综合ES估计都非常强(>1.0)。清创组总并发症的ES估计为1.75 (95% CI: 0.08-3.43, I2 = 0%),联合清创组的ES估计为9.07 (95% CI: -0.03-18.17, I2 = 50.4%)。结论:两种关节镜手术均可显著提高EVA、ASES、UCLA和Constant评分的总分。然而,缝合组的并发症比例较高。在这方面,我们必须考虑是否真的有必要在钙化沉积物清除后修复所有的部分撕裂。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
156
审稿时长
51 weeks
期刊介绍: Es una magnífica revista para acceder a los mejores artículos de investigación en la especialidad y los casos clínicos de mayor interés. Además, es la Publicación Oficial de la Sociedad, y está incluida en prestigiosos índices de referencia en medicina.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信