Knotted or knotless double-row rotator cuff repair retear rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Q4 Medicine
João A. Figueiredo MD , Marco Sarmento PhD , Nuno Moura MD , Diogo Silva Gomes MD , António Cartucho MD
{"title":"Knotted or knotless double-row rotator cuff repair retear rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"João A. Figueiredo MD ,&nbsp;Marco Sarmento PhD ,&nbsp;Nuno Moura MD ,&nbsp;Diogo Silva Gomes MD ,&nbsp;António Cartucho MD","doi":"10.1016/j.xrrt.2023.09.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Arthroscopic rotator cuff tear repair techniques used to rely on knot-tying double row techniques, but the advent of knotless transosseous equivalent procedures introduced a new variable to the debate. The purpose of this study is to determine which technique is associated with lower retear rates. For its’ biomechanical advantages, the authors’ hypothesis is that knotless techniques would have lower retear rates.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A systematic literature search was performed via PubMed and Google Scholar by two independent reviewers following PRISMA guidelines. Papers reporting retear rates after rotator cuff arthroscopic repair using knotted double-row or knotless transosseous equivalent techniques, evaluated by magnetic resonance imaging at least 6 months after surgery, were retrieved. Studies that do not differentiate between techniques and nonclinical reports were excluded. Eligible data was analyzed with Review Manager 5.4.1 using Mantel-Haenszel statistics with a fixed effect model.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>The authors’ initial literature search retrieved 511 reports. After the selection process, 24 articles were available for this review, and 9 were eligible for meta-analysis. A comparison of 1888 subjects from noncomparative reports and a meta-analysis of reports in which both techniques were studied could not show a statistically significant difference in technique retear rates.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion and conclusion</h3><p>The current report revealed no significant difference in retear rates between the two arthroscopic repair techniques. Studies’ quality was a limitation. Only two reported level 1 evidence. This review could not control variables such as cuff tear size, tissue quality, or individual comorbidities. Larger and longer follow-up studies could be helpful to further investigate this topic.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74030,"journal":{"name":"JSES reviews, reports, and techniques","volume":"4 1","pages":"Pages 15-19"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666639123000950/pdfft?md5=aae4250fdfbff05159975b5443719a07&pid=1-s2.0-S2666639123000950-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JSES reviews, reports, and techniques","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666639123000950","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Arthroscopic rotator cuff tear repair techniques used to rely on knot-tying double row techniques, but the advent of knotless transosseous equivalent procedures introduced a new variable to the debate. The purpose of this study is to determine which technique is associated with lower retear rates. For its’ biomechanical advantages, the authors’ hypothesis is that knotless techniques would have lower retear rates.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed via PubMed and Google Scholar by two independent reviewers following PRISMA guidelines. Papers reporting retear rates after rotator cuff arthroscopic repair using knotted double-row or knotless transosseous equivalent techniques, evaluated by magnetic resonance imaging at least 6 months after surgery, were retrieved. Studies that do not differentiate between techniques and nonclinical reports were excluded. Eligible data was analyzed with Review Manager 5.4.1 using Mantel-Haenszel statistics with a fixed effect model.

Results

The authors’ initial literature search retrieved 511 reports. After the selection process, 24 articles were available for this review, and 9 were eligible for meta-analysis. A comparison of 1888 subjects from noncomparative reports and a meta-analysis of reports in which both techniques were studied could not show a statistically significant difference in technique retear rates.

Discussion and conclusion

The current report revealed no significant difference in retear rates between the two arthroscopic repair techniques. Studies’ quality was a limitation. Only two reported level 1 evidence. This review could not control variables such as cuff tear size, tissue quality, or individual comorbidities. Larger and longer follow-up studies could be helpful to further investigate this topic.

有结或无结双排肩袖修复再撕裂率:系统回顾和荟萃分析
背景显微镜下肩袖撕裂修复技术过去依赖于打结双排技术,但无结经骨膜等效手术的出现为这一争论带来了新的变数。本研究的目的是确定哪种技术与较低的再撕裂率相关。作者假设无结技术具有生物力学优势,因此其再撕裂率较低。方法由两名独立审稿人按照 PRISMA 指南通过 PubMed 和 Google Scholar 进行了系统的文献检索。检索的文献报告了使用有结双排或无结经骨膜等效技术进行肩袖关节镜修复术后的再撕裂率,并在术后至少 6 个月进行了磁共振成像评估。未区分技术和非临床报告的研究被排除在外。作者使用Review Manager 5.4.1对符合条件的数据进行了分析,并使用固定效应模型进行了Mantel-Haenszel统计。经过筛选,有 24 篇文章可用于本次综述,其中 9 篇符合荟萃分析条件。对来自非比较性报告的1888名受试者进行了比较,并对研究了两种技术的报告进行了荟萃分析,结果显示两种技术的再撕裂率在统计学上没有显著差异。研究质量是一个限制因素。只有两项研究报告了一级证据。本综述无法控制袖带撕裂大小、组织质量或个人合并症等变量。规模更大、时间更长的随访研究将有助于进一步研究这一课题。
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
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
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