两种不同双排修复技术在关节镜下修复肩袖撕裂的效果比较。

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Gökhan Ünlü, Mehmet Faruk Çatma, Ahmet Burak Satılmış, Tolgahan Cengiz, Serhan Ünlü, Mustafa Erdem, Önder Ersan
{"title":"两种不同双排修复技术在关节镜下修复肩袖撕裂的效果比较。","authors":"Gökhan Ünlü, Mehmet Faruk Çatma, Ahmet Burak Satılmış, Tolgahan Cengiz, Serhan Ünlü, Mustafa Erdem, Önder Ersan","doi":"10.3390/medicina61040674","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><i>Background and Objectives</i>: Shoulder pain, mainly involving rotator cuff tears, is a common type of musculoskeletal pain that significantly impairs quality of life. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair has become the gold standard for treating symptomatic, full-thickness rotator cuff tears. Double-row repair techniques are widely used because of their superior fixation and healing results. However, fewer implants may reduce treatment costs and raise questions about the impact on clinical outcomes and re-tear rates. This study compares the functional outcomes and re-tear rates of two transosseous-like double-row repair techniques: one anchor and one push lock (Group 1), and two anchors and two push locks (Group 2). <i>Materials and Methods</i>: A prospective, randomized, single-blind study was conducted on 53 patients undergoing arthroscopic repair for crescent-shaped rotator cuff tears (3-5 cm). Before surgery and 24 months after surgery, patients were evaluated for shoulder function using Constant-Murley scores and shoulder abduction angles. MRI was used to assess re-tear rates. <i>Results</i>: Both groups showed significant postoperative improvement in Constant scores (Group 1: 84.1; Group 2: 84.0; <i>p</i> > 0.05). Re-tear rates were slightly higher in Group 1 (23.1%) than in Group 2 (18.5%), but this was not statistically significant (<i>p</i> > 0.05). Shoulder abduction angles improved similarly between groups, with no significant difference in outcome. Despite higher costs and longer operative times, the two-anchor technique provided more stable fixation, but its functional outcomes were comparable to the single-anchor method. <i>Conclusions</i>: Using fewer implants in a double-row repair provides comparable functional outcomes and re-tear rates, and offers surgeons a cost-effective alternative, especially at the beginning of their learning curve. However, the two-anchor technique may be more beneficial in cases requiring improved mechanical stability. These findings provide valuable information to balance cost and effectiveness in rotator cuff repair.</p>","PeriodicalId":49830,"journal":{"name":"Medicina-Lithuania","volume":"61 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12028681/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparison of the Results of Two Different Double-Row Repair Techniques in Arthroscopic Repair of Rotator Cuff Tears.\",\"authors\":\"Gökhan Ünlü, Mehmet Faruk Çatma, Ahmet Burak Satılmış, Tolgahan Cengiz, Serhan Ünlü, Mustafa Erdem, Önder Ersan\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/medicina61040674\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><i>Background and Objectives</i>: Shoulder pain, mainly involving rotator cuff tears, is a common type of musculoskeletal pain that significantly impairs quality of life. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair has become the gold standard for treating symptomatic, full-thickness rotator cuff tears. Double-row repair techniques are widely used because of their superior fixation and healing results. However, fewer implants may reduce treatment costs and raise questions about the impact on clinical outcomes and re-tear rates. This study compares the functional outcomes and re-tear rates of two transosseous-like double-row repair techniques: one anchor and one push lock (Group 1), and two anchors and two push locks (Group 2). <i>Materials and Methods</i>: A prospective, randomized, single-blind study was conducted on 53 patients undergoing arthroscopic repair for crescent-shaped rotator cuff tears (3-5 cm). Before surgery and 24 months after surgery, patients were evaluated for shoulder function using Constant-Murley scores and shoulder abduction angles. MRI was used to assess re-tear rates. <i>Results</i>: Both groups showed significant postoperative improvement in Constant scores (Group 1: 84.1; Group 2: 84.0; <i>p</i> > 0.05). Re-tear rates were slightly higher in Group 1 (23.1%) than in Group 2 (18.5%), but this was not statistically significant (<i>p</i> > 0.05). Shoulder abduction angles improved similarly between groups, with no significant difference in outcome. Despite higher costs and longer operative times, the two-anchor technique provided more stable fixation, but its functional outcomes were comparable to the single-anchor method. <i>Conclusions</i>: Using fewer implants in a double-row repair provides comparable functional outcomes and re-tear rates, and offers surgeons a cost-effective alternative, especially at the beginning of their learning curve. However, the two-anchor technique may be more beneficial in cases requiring improved mechanical stability. These findings provide valuable information to balance cost and effectiveness in rotator cuff repair.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49830,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medicina-Lithuania\",\"volume\":\"61 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12028681/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medicina-Lithuania\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61040674\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medicina-Lithuania","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina61040674","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:肩痛,主要包括肩袖撕裂,是一种常见的肌肉骨骼疼痛,严重影响生活质量。关节镜下肩袖修复已成为治疗症状性全层肩袖撕裂的金标准。双排修复技术因其良好的固定和愈合效果而被广泛应用。然而,较少的植入物可能会降低治疗成本,并对临床结果和再撕裂率的影响提出质疑。本研究比较了两种跨骨样双排修复技术的功能结局和再撕裂率:一根锚钉加一根推锁(组1)和两根锚钉加两根推锁(组2)。材料与方法:对53例接受关节镜修复月牙形肩袖撕裂(3-5 cm)的患者进行前瞻性、随机、单盲研究。术前和术后24个月,使用Constant-Murley评分和肩部外展角评估患者的肩关节功能。MRI评估再撕裂率。结果:两组术后恒评分均有显著改善(组1:84.1;第二组:84.0分;P < 0.05)。组1的再撕裂率(23.1%)略高于组2(18.5%),但差异无统计学意义(p < 0.05)。两组间肩关节外展角度的改善相似,结果无显著差异。尽管成本更高,手术时间更长,双锚技术提供了更稳定的固定,但其功能结果与单锚方法相当。结论:在双排修复中使用较少的种植体可以提供相当的功能效果和再撕裂率,并为外科医生提供了一种经济有效的替代方案,特别是在他们学习曲线的开始阶段。然而,双锚技术在需要提高机械稳定性的情况下可能更有益。这些发现为平衡肩袖修复的成本和效果提供了有价值的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Comparison of the Results of Two Different Double-Row Repair Techniques in Arthroscopic Repair of Rotator Cuff Tears.

Background and Objectives: Shoulder pain, mainly involving rotator cuff tears, is a common type of musculoskeletal pain that significantly impairs quality of life. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair has become the gold standard for treating symptomatic, full-thickness rotator cuff tears. Double-row repair techniques are widely used because of their superior fixation and healing results. However, fewer implants may reduce treatment costs and raise questions about the impact on clinical outcomes and re-tear rates. This study compares the functional outcomes and re-tear rates of two transosseous-like double-row repair techniques: one anchor and one push lock (Group 1), and two anchors and two push locks (Group 2). Materials and Methods: A prospective, randomized, single-blind study was conducted on 53 patients undergoing arthroscopic repair for crescent-shaped rotator cuff tears (3-5 cm). Before surgery and 24 months after surgery, patients were evaluated for shoulder function using Constant-Murley scores and shoulder abduction angles. MRI was used to assess re-tear rates. Results: Both groups showed significant postoperative improvement in Constant scores (Group 1: 84.1; Group 2: 84.0; p > 0.05). Re-tear rates were slightly higher in Group 1 (23.1%) than in Group 2 (18.5%), but this was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Shoulder abduction angles improved similarly between groups, with no significant difference in outcome. Despite higher costs and longer operative times, the two-anchor technique provided more stable fixation, but its functional outcomes were comparable to the single-anchor method. Conclusions: Using fewer implants in a double-row repair provides comparable functional outcomes and re-tear rates, and offers surgeons a cost-effective alternative, especially at the beginning of their learning curve. However, the two-anchor technique may be more beneficial in cases requiring improved mechanical stability. These findings provide valuable information to balance cost and effectiveness in rotator cuff repair.

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
Medicina-Lithuania
Medicina-Lithuania 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
3.80%
发文量
1578
审稿时长
25.04 days
期刊介绍: The journal’s main focus is on reviews as well as clinical and experimental investigations. The journal aims to advance knowledge related to problems in medicine in developing countries as well as developed economies, to disseminate research on global health, and to promote and foster prevention and treatment of diseases worldwide. MEDICINA publications cater to clinicians, diagnosticians and researchers, and serve as a forum to discuss the current status of health-related matters and their impact on a global and local scale.
×
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