Evaluating Failure Rates of Primary Quadriceps Tendon Repairs Across Different Surgical Techniques.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Pub Date : 2025-01-02 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1177/23259671241303924
Mark S Katsma, Vaughn Land, S Hunter Renfro, Hunter Culp, George C Balazs
{"title":"Evaluating Failure Rates of Primary Quadriceps Tendon Repairs Across Different Surgical Techniques.","authors":"Mark S Katsma, Vaughn Land, S Hunter Renfro, Hunter Culp, George C Balazs","doi":"10.1177/23259671241303924","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Quadriceps tendon ruptures occur infrequently in the general population. Biomechanical data suggest advantages with the use of suture anchor fixation for major tendon repair. Clinical studies of quadriceps tendon repair have been limited to small case series.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate clinical failure following primary quadriceps tendon repair with transosseous tunnel or suture anchor repair.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Military Health System Data Repository was queried to identify all adult patients who underwent primary quadriceps tendon repair in the Military Health System between 2014 and 2018. Patients were excluded if they had incomplete records, polytrauma, open injury, prior ipsilateral total knee arthroplasty did not undergo quadriceps tendon repair, or underwent revision repair. Follow-up was obtained by manual chart review of both orthopaedic and nonorthopaedic records, recording any evidence of ongoing knee issues. Univariate analysis was performed to determine associations between potential risk factors and repair failure. Multicollinearity was assessed between potential risk factors, and candidate variables were included in multivariate logistic regression models to determine independent risk factors for repair failure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Following application of inclusion/exclusion criteria, 245 knees in 234 patients were included. Mean age of the cohort was 52 years. Patients were predominantly male (223/234; 95%) and military retirees (143/234; 61%). Transosseous tunnel repair was the most frequently employed surgical technique (147/245; 60%), followed by suture anchor repair (78/245; 32%). Repair failure requiring revision surgery occurred in 11% of knees (27/245). Surgical-site infection following index surgery was associated with eventual rerupture (<i>P</i> = .02). There was no difference in failure rate between transosseous tunnel repair and suture anchor repair (12.2% vs 9.0%; <i>P</i> = .51). Among knees undergoing suture anchor repair, no difference in failure was found between knot-tying and knotless suture anchor fixation (<i>P</i> = .73).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We observed no difference in failure of primary quadriceps tendon repair between transosseous tunnel and suture anchor repair types or between the 2 main suture anchor implant subtypes (knotless vs knot-tying anchors). A greater than previously reported rerupture rate was observed, indicating the need for continued investigation into optimal surgical techniques.</p>","PeriodicalId":19646,"journal":{"name":"Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine","volume":"13 1","pages":"23259671241303924"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11696997/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23259671241303924","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Quadriceps tendon ruptures occur infrequently in the general population. Biomechanical data suggest advantages with the use of suture anchor fixation for major tendon repair. Clinical studies of quadriceps tendon repair have been limited to small case series.

Purpose: To evaluate clinical failure following primary quadriceps tendon repair with transosseous tunnel or suture anchor repair.

Study design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods: The Military Health System Data Repository was queried to identify all adult patients who underwent primary quadriceps tendon repair in the Military Health System between 2014 and 2018. Patients were excluded if they had incomplete records, polytrauma, open injury, prior ipsilateral total knee arthroplasty did not undergo quadriceps tendon repair, or underwent revision repair. Follow-up was obtained by manual chart review of both orthopaedic and nonorthopaedic records, recording any evidence of ongoing knee issues. Univariate analysis was performed to determine associations between potential risk factors and repair failure. Multicollinearity was assessed between potential risk factors, and candidate variables were included in multivariate logistic regression models to determine independent risk factors for repair failure.

Results: Following application of inclusion/exclusion criteria, 245 knees in 234 patients were included. Mean age of the cohort was 52 years. Patients were predominantly male (223/234; 95%) and military retirees (143/234; 61%). Transosseous tunnel repair was the most frequently employed surgical technique (147/245; 60%), followed by suture anchor repair (78/245; 32%). Repair failure requiring revision surgery occurred in 11% of knees (27/245). Surgical-site infection following index surgery was associated with eventual rerupture (P = .02). There was no difference in failure rate between transosseous tunnel repair and suture anchor repair (12.2% vs 9.0%; P = .51). Among knees undergoing suture anchor repair, no difference in failure was found between knot-tying and knotless suture anchor fixation (P = .73).

Conclusion: We observed no difference in failure of primary quadriceps tendon repair between transosseous tunnel and suture anchor repair types or between the 2 main suture anchor implant subtypes (knotless vs knot-tying anchors). A greater than previously reported rerupture rate was observed, indicating the need for continued investigation into optimal surgical techniques.

评估不同手术技术对原发性股四头肌肌腱修复的失败率。
背景:四头肌肌腱断裂在一般人群中并不常见。生物力学数据显示缝合锚定固定用于大肌腱修复的优势。股四头肌肌腱修复的临床研究仅限于小病例系列。目的:评价经骨隧道或缝合锚钉修复原发性股四头肌肌腱后的临床失败。研究设计:队列研究;证据水平,3。方法:查询军事卫生系统数据库,确定2014年至2018年在军事卫生系统接受初级股四头肌肌腱修复的所有成年患者。排除记录不完整、多发创伤、开放性损伤、既往同侧全膝关节置换术未行股四头肌肌腱修复或翻修修复的患者。通过手工检查骨科和非骨科记录的图表获得随访,记录任何持续存在的膝关节问题的证据。进行单因素分析以确定潜在危险因素与修复失败之间的关系。评估潜在危险因素之间的多重共线性,并将候选变量纳入多元逻辑回归模型,以确定维修失败的独立危险因素。结果:按照纳入/排除标准,234例患者纳入245个膝关节。该队列的平均年龄为52岁。患者以男性为主(223/234;95%)和军队退休人员(143/234;61%)。经骨隧道修复是最常用的手术技术(147/245;60%),其次是缝合锚修复术(78/245;32%)。需要翻修手术的修复失败发生率为11%(27/245)。指数手术后手术部位感染与最终的再破裂相关(P = 0.02)。经骨隧道修复和缝合锚钉修复的失败率无差异(12.2% vs 9.0%;P = .51)。在进行缝合锚固定的膝关节中,有结和无结缝合锚固定的失败率无差异(P = 0.73)。结论:我们观察到经骨隧道和缝合锚钉修复类型以及两种主要缝合锚钉植入亚型(无结锚钉和打结锚钉)在原发性股四头肌肌腱修复失败方面没有差异。观察到比先前报道的更大的再破裂率,表明需要继续研究最佳手术技术。
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
Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine
Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
876
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine (OJSM), developed by the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM), is a global, peer-reviewed, open access journal that combines the interests of researchers and clinical practitioners across orthopaedic sports medicine, arthroscopy, and knee arthroplasty. Topics include original research in the areas of: -Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, including surgical and nonsurgical treatment of orthopaedic sports injuries -Arthroscopic Surgery (Shoulder/Elbow/Wrist/Hip/Knee/Ankle/Foot) -Relevant translational research -Sports traumatology/epidemiology -Knee and shoulder arthroplasty The OJSM also publishes relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
×
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