肩袖修复后的再入率在男性和女性之间相似

Q2 Medicine
Jonathan D. Harley BA , Lucas J. Ray MD , Conner P. Olson BA , Spencer M. Comfort MD , Alicia K. Harrison MD , Bryan M. Saltzman MD , Allison J. Rao MD
{"title":"肩袖修复后的再入率在男性和女性之间相似","authors":"Jonathan D. Harley BA ,&nbsp;Lucas J. Ray MD ,&nbsp;Conner P. Olson BA ,&nbsp;Spencer M. Comfort MD ,&nbsp;Alicia K. Harrison MD ,&nbsp;Bryan M. Saltzman MD ,&nbsp;Allison J. Rao MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jseint.2024.12.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Hypothesis</h3><div>A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted investigating sex-based differences in retear rate after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR). It is hypothesized that females experience a higher rate of retear than males.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We performed a systematic review of 3 databases according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies were included if they were written in English, published in a peer-reviewed journal, included patients with a history of arthroscopic RCR, reported failure rate based on sex, and had level of evidence 3 or higher. To assess failure, we used retear as our primary outcome, defined as a loss of structural integrity of the rotator cuff after primary repair, confirmed by imaging. Complications, reoperation, and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) were secondary outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>In 11 eligible studies, there were 3134 patients, 1787 female (57%) and 1476 male (43%). Of 11 studies, 10 reported sex-specific rates of retear, 3 reported complications by sex, 3 reported reoperation by sex, and 2 reported PROs by sex. A random-effects model demonstrated no significant difference in retear rates between females and males (mean difference, .010 [95% CI, −.068 to .087]; <em>P</em> = .81). Limited reporting prevented analysis for complication or reoperation rates. One study found significantly higher American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores (92.2 vs. 88.2, <em>P</em> = .002), Constant-Murley Score scores (92.2 vs. 81.8, <em>P</em> &lt; .001) and significantly lower visual analog scale pain scores (.75 vs. 1.39, <em>P</em> &lt; .001) for males compared with females. No other significant differences in PROs were found. A random-effects model showed a significant difference in age between patients with and without retear (mean difference, 4.38 years [95% CI, 1.81-6.95]; <em>P</em> &lt; .001).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Female and male patients showed no significant difference in retear rate following arthroscopic RCR. Retears were associated with increased age, which aligns with previous findings in the existing literature. Since many studies reported only one or a few of the desired outcomes, increasing the uniformity of outcome reporting related to RCR failure may be beneficial.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":34444,"journal":{"name":"JSES International","volume":"9 3","pages":"Pages 691-697"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rates of retear following rotator cuff repair are similar between men and women\",\"authors\":\"Jonathan D. Harley BA ,&nbsp;Lucas J. Ray MD ,&nbsp;Conner P. Olson BA ,&nbsp;Spencer M. Comfort MD ,&nbsp;Alicia K. Harrison MD ,&nbsp;Bryan M. Saltzman MD ,&nbsp;Allison J. Rao MD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jseint.2024.12.009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Hypothesis</h3><div>A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted investigating sex-based differences in retear rate after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR). It is hypothesized that females experience a higher rate of retear than males.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We performed a systematic review of 3 databases according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies were included if they were written in English, published in a peer-reviewed journal, included patients with a history of arthroscopic RCR, reported failure rate based on sex, and had level of evidence 3 or higher. To assess failure, we used retear as our primary outcome, defined as a loss of structural integrity of the rotator cuff after primary repair, confirmed by imaging. Complications, reoperation, and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) were secondary outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>In 11 eligible studies, there were 3134 patients, 1787 female (57%) and 1476 male (43%). Of 11 studies, 10 reported sex-specific rates of retear, 3 reported complications by sex, 3 reported reoperation by sex, and 2 reported PROs by sex. A random-effects model demonstrated no significant difference in retear rates between females and males (mean difference, .010 [95% CI, −.068 to .087]; <em>P</em> = .81). Limited reporting prevented analysis for complication or reoperation rates. One study found significantly higher American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores (92.2 vs. 88.2, <em>P</em> = .002), Constant-Murley Score scores (92.2 vs. 81.8, <em>P</em> &lt; .001) and significantly lower visual analog scale pain scores (.75 vs. 1.39, <em>P</em> &lt; .001) for males compared with females. No other significant differences in PROs were found. A random-effects model showed a significant difference in age between patients with and without retear (mean difference, 4.38 years [95% CI, 1.81-6.95]; <em>P</em> &lt; .001).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Female and male patients showed no significant difference in retear rate following arthroscopic RCR. Retears were associated with increased age, which aligns with previous findings in the existing literature. Since many studies reported only one or a few of the desired outcomes, increasing the uniformity of outcome reporting related to RCR failure may be beneficial.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":34444,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JSES International\",\"volume\":\"9 3\",\"pages\":\"Pages 691-697\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JSES International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666638325000118\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JSES International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666638325000118","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究对关节镜下肩袖修复(RCR)术后返弹率的性别差异进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析。据推测,女性的失忆率比男性高。方法我们根据系统评价和meta分析指南的首选报告项目对3个数据库进行了系统评价。如果研究是用英文写的,发表在同行评议的期刊上,包括有关节镜下RCR病史的患者,报告的失败率基于性别,证据水平为3级或更高,则纳入研究。为了评估失败,我们使用撕裂作为我们的主要结果,定义为初步修复后肩袖结构完整性的丧失,并通过影像学证实。并发症、再手术和患者报告的预后(PRO)是次要结果。结果11项入选研究共纳入3134例患者,其中女性1787例(57%),男性1476例(43%)。在11项研究中,10项报告了性别特异性的复发率,3项报告了按性别划分的并发症,3项报告了按性别划分的再手术,2项报告了按性别划分的PROs。随机效应模型显示,女性和男性的复发率无显著差异(平均差异为0.010)。[0.68 ~ 0.087];P = .81)。有限的报告妨碍了对并发症或再手术率的分析。一项研究发现,美国肩关节外科医生评分(92.2比88.2,P = 0.002)和Constant-Murley Score评分(92.2比81.8,P <;.001),视觉模拟量表疼痛评分显著降低(。75 vs. 1.39, P <;.001)。在PROs方面未发现其他显著差异。随机效应模型显示,有和没有复发的患者的年龄有显著差异(平均差为4.38岁[95% CI, 1.81-6.95];P & lt;措施)。结论关节镜下RCR术后,女性和男性患者的返弹率无显著差异。眼泪与年龄增长有关,这与现有文献中先前的发现一致。由于许多研究只报告了一种或几种预期结果,因此增加与RCR失败相关的结果报告的一致性可能是有益的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Rates of retear following rotator cuff repair are similar between men and women

Hypothesis

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted investigating sex-based differences in retear rate after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR). It is hypothesized that females experience a higher rate of retear than males.

Methods

We performed a systematic review of 3 databases according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies were included if they were written in English, published in a peer-reviewed journal, included patients with a history of arthroscopic RCR, reported failure rate based on sex, and had level of evidence 3 or higher. To assess failure, we used retear as our primary outcome, defined as a loss of structural integrity of the rotator cuff after primary repair, confirmed by imaging. Complications, reoperation, and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) were secondary outcomes.

Results

In 11 eligible studies, there were 3134 patients, 1787 female (57%) and 1476 male (43%). Of 11 studies, 10 reported sex-specific rates of retear, 3 reported complications by sex, 3 reported reoperation by sex, and 2 reported PROs by sex. A random-effects model demonstrated no significant difference in retear rates between females and males (mean difference, .010 [95% CI, −.068 to .087]; P = .81). Limited reporting prevented analysis for complication or reoperation rates. One study found significantly higher American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores (92.2 vs. 88.2, P = .002), Constant-Murley Score scores (92.2 vs. 81.8, P < .001) and significantly lower visual analog scale pain scores (.75 vs. 1.39, P < .001) for males compared with females. No other significant differences in PROs were found. A random-effects model showed a significant difference in age between patients with and without retear (mean difference, 4.38 years [95% CI, 1.81-6.95]; P < .001).

Conclusion

Female and male patients showed no significant difference in retear rate following arthroscopic RCR. Retears were associated with increased age, which aligns with previous findings in the existing literature. Since many studies reported only one or a few of the desired outcomes, increasing the uniformity of outcome reporting related to RCR failure may be beneficial.
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
JSES International
JSES International Medicine-Surgery
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
174
审稿时长
14 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:604180095
Book学术官方微信