关节镜下修复法囊侧部分厚度肩袖撕裂:文献回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 4.2 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
American Journal of Sports Medicine Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-10 DOI:10.1177/03635465241239883
Yoann Dalmas, Kevin A Hao, Hugo Barret, Pierre Mansat, Nicolas Bonnevialle
{"title":"关节镜下修复法囊侧部分厚度肩袖撕裂:文献回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Yoann Dalmas, Kevin A Hao, Hugo Barret, Pierre Mansat, Nicolas Bonnevialle","doi":"10.1177/03635465241239883","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The surgical management of bursal-sided partial-thickness rotator cuff tendon tears is controversial. The 2 methods used are in situ repair (ISR), preserving the contingent of intact articular tendon fiber, or tear completion before repair (TCBR) according to the operating surgeon's usual technique. No study with sufficient power has demonstrated a superior technique.</p><p><strong>Hypothesis: </strong>The 2 techniques are equivalent in terms of clinical outcome and tendon healing.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Systematic literature review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review was carried out in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) recommendations on the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from January 2003 through March 2023. Only articles dealing with Ellman grade 3 bursal-sided tears with a minimum follow-up of 1 year were included. Primary endpoints were American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and Constant-Murley scores, pain on a visual analog scale, and retear rate. The secondary endpoint was recovery of active mobility.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twelve studies were included with overlap of 3, leaving 8 ISR studies (360 patients; mean follow-up, 30 months) and 7 TCBR studies (224 patients; mean follow-up, 51 months) for statistical analysis. No significant clinical differences were found when comparing mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (92.2 [95% CI, 88.1-96.2] vs 88.9 [95% CI, 85.8-92.0]; <i>P</i> = .21), Constant-Murley (86.3 [95% CI, 81.5-91.0] vs 91.8 [95% CI, 88.1-95.6]; <i>P</i> = .07), and visual analog scale (0.8 [95% CI, 0.2-1.4] vs 1.0 [95% CI, 0.5-1.4]; <i>P</i> = .63) scores in the TCBR and ISR groups, respectively. The retear rate was 6.8% (95% CI, 3.1%-14.3%) in the TCBR group and 9.5% (95% CI, 6.1%-14.3%) in the ISR group (<i>P</i> = .46). Active mobility was also comparable.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This meta-analysis suggests that ISR and TCBR provide comparable results in the surgical management of Ellman grade 3 bursal-sided partial-thickness rotator cuff tears.</p>","PeriodicalId":55528,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Sports Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"501-507"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Arthroscopic Repair of Bursal-Sided Partial-Thickness Rotator Cuff Tears: Literature Review and Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Yoann Dalmas, Kevin A Hao, Hugo Barret, Pierre Mansat, Nicolas Bonnevialle\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/03635465241239883\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The surgical management of bursal-sided partial-thickness rotator cuff tendon tears is controversial. The 2 methods used are in situ repair (ISR), preserving the contingent of intact articular tendon fiber, or tear completion before repair (TCBR) according to the operating surgeon's usual technique. No study with sufficient power has demonstrated a superior technique.</p><p><strong>Hypothesis: </strong>The 2 techniques are equivalent in terms of clinical outcome and tendon healing.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Systematic literature review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review was carried out in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) recommendations on the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from January 2003 through March 2023. Only articles dealing with Ellman grade 3 bursal-sided tears with a minimum follow-up of 1 year were included. Primary endpoints were American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and Constant-Murley scores, pain on a visual analog scale, and retear rate. The secondary endpoint was recovery of active mobility.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twelve studies were included with overlap of 3, leaving 8 ISR studies (360 patients; mean follow-up, 30 months) and 7 TCBR studies (224 patients; mean follow-up, 51 months) for statistical analysis. No significant clinical differences were found when comparing mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (92.2 [95% CI, 88.1-96.2] vs 88.9 [95% CI, 85.8-92.0]; <i>P</i> = .21), Constant-Murley (86.3 [95% CI, 81.5-91.0] vs 91.8 [95% CI, 88.1-95.6]; <i>P</i> = .07), and visual analog scale (0.8 [95% CI, 0.2-1.4] vs 1.0 [95% CI, 0.5-1.4]; <i>P</i> = .63) scores in the TCBR and ISR groups, respectively. The retear rate was 6.8% (95% CI, 3.1%-14.3%) in the TCBR group and 9.5% (95% CI, 6.1%-14.3%) in the ISR group (<i>P</i> = .46). Active mobility was also comparable.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This meta-analysis suggests that ISR and TCBR provide comparable results in the surgical management of Ellman grade 3 bursal-sided partial-thickness rotator cuff tears.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55528,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Sports Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"501-507\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Sports Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465241239883\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465241239883","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:法囊侧部分厚度肩袖肌腱撕裂的手术治疗存在争议。使用的两种方法是原位修复(ISR),保留部分完整的关节肌腱纤维,或根据外科医生的常用技术在修复前完成撕裂(TCBR)。目前还没有足够有力的研究证明了一种优越的技术。假设:这两种方法在临床结果和肌腱愈合方面是相同的。研究设计:系统文献综述和荟萃分析;证据等级,4级。方法:从2003年1月到2023年3月,按照PRISMA(系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目)建议对PubMed、Embase和Cochrane图书馆数据库进行系统评价。仅纳入了至少随访1年的Ellman 3级法氏囊侧撕裂的文章。主要终点是美国肩关节外科医生和Constant-Murley评分,视觉模拟量表疼痛和复复率。次要终点是主动活动能力的恢复。结果:纳入12项研究,重叠3项,剩下8项ISR研究(360例患者;平均随访30个月)和7项TCBR研究(224例患者;平均随访51个月)进行统计分析。当比较平均美国肩关节和肘部外科医生时,没有发现显著的临床差异(92.2 [95% CI, 88.1-96.2] vs 88.9 [95% CI, 85.8-92.0];P = .21), Constant-Murley (86.3 [95% CI, 81.5-91.0] vs 91.8 [95% CI, 88.1-95.6];P = .07)和视觉模拟量表(0.8 [95% CI, 0.2-1.4] vs 1.0 [95% CI, 0.5-1.4];P = 0.63)。TCBR组的复发率为6.8% (95% CI, 3.1% ~ 14.3%), ISR组的复发率为9.5% (95% CI, 6.1% ~ 14.3%) (P = 0.46)。主动流动性也具有可比性。结论:本荟萃分析表明,ISR和TCBR在Ellman 3级法囊侧部分厚度肩袖撕裂的手术治疗中提供了相当的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Arthroscopic Repair of Bursal-Sided Partial-Thickness Rotator Cuff Tears: Literature Review and Meta-analysis.

Background: The surgical management of bursal-sided partial-thickness rotator cuff tendon tears is controversial. The 2 methods used are in situ repair (ISR), preserving the contingent of intact articular tendon fiber, or tear completion before repair (TCBR) according to the operating surgeon's usual technique. No study with sufficient power has demonstrated a superior technique.

Hypothesis: The 2 techniques are equivalent in terms of clinical outcome and tendon healing.

Study design: Systematic literature review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods: A systematic review was carried out in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) recommendations on the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from January 2003 through March 2023. Only articles dealing with Ellman grade 3 bursal-sided tears with a minimum follow-up of 1 year were included. Primary endpoints were American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and Constant-Murley scores, pain on a visual analog scale, and retear rate. The secondary endpoint was recovery of active mobility.

Results: Twelve studies were included with overlap of 3, leaving 8 ISR studies (360 patients; mean follow-up, 30 months) and 7 TCBR studies (224 patients; mean follow-up, 51 months) for statistical analysis. No significant clinical differences were found when comparing mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (92.2 [95% CI, 88.1-96.2] vs 88.9 [95% CI, 85.8-92.0]; P = .21), Constant-Murley (86.3 [95% CI, 81.5-91.0] vs 91.8 [95% CI, 88.1-95.6]; P = .07), and visual analog scale (0.8 [95% CI, 0.2-1.4] vs 1.0 [95% CI, 0.5-1.4]; P = .63) scores in the TCBR and ISR groups, respectively. The retear rate was 6.8% (95% CI, 3.1%-14.3%) in the TCBR group and 9.5% (95% CI, 6.1%-14.3%) in the ISR group (P = .46). Active mobility was also comparable.

Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests that ISR and TCBR provide comparable results in the surgical management of Ellman grade 3 bursal-sided partial-thickness rotator cuff tears.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
425
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: An invaluable resource for the orthopaedic sports medicine community, _The American Journal of Sports Medicine_ is a peer-reviewed scientific journal, first published in 1972. It is the official publication of the [American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM)](http://www.sportsmed.org/)! The journal acts as an important forum for independent orthopaedic sports medicine research and education, allowing clinical practitioners the ability to make decisions based on sound scientific information. This journal is a must-read for: * Orthopaedic Surgeons and Specialists * Sports Medicine Physicians * Physiatrists * Athletic Trainers * Team Physicians * And Physical Therapists
×
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