[Translated article] 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":"[Translated article] 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.2024.11.003","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":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","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.2024.11.003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","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.

[肩袖清创术与肩袖修复术在肩部钙化性肌腱炎关节镜治疗中的比较:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
导言:尽管保守治疗钙化性肌腱病的成功率很高,但有时仍有必要在关节镜下切除钙化沉积物。对于剩余的肩袖缺损可以留在原位还是应该进行修复以获得更好的功能效果,目前还存在争议。本研究旨在比较关节镜手术治疗钙化性肌腱病时清创与清创结合缝合的效果:方法:检索了MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane Library和Web of Science上从开始到2023年2月有关关节镜治疗钙化性肌腱病的文章。对功能结果(VAS、ASES、UCLA 和 Constant)和并发症数量进行了分析。研究结果采用科恩d指数计算效应大小:结果:共纳入 21 项研究,包括 1172 名年龄在 44.7 岁至 55 岁之间的患者。平均随访时间为 24.7 个月。清创术和清创与缝合联合术的 VAS、ASES、UCLA 和 Constant 量表总分的 ES 估计值非常高(>1.0)。清创术总并发症数量的 ES 估计值为 1.75(95% CI:0.08-3.43,I2 = 0%),联合清创缝合术的 ES 估计值为 9.07(95% CI:-0.03-18.17,I2 = 50.4%):两种关节镜手术都能显著提高EVA、ASES、UCLA和Constant量表的总分。然而,在进行缝合的一组中,并发症的比例较高。在这方面,我们必须考虑是否真的有必要在清除钙化沉积物后修复所有部分撕裂。
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