Carr Andrew J, Cooper Cushla D, Campbell Marion K, Rees Jonathan L, Moser Jane, Beard David J, Fitzpatrick Ray, Gray Alastair, Dawson Jill, Murphy Jacqueline, Bruhn Hanne, Cooper David, Ramsay Craig R
Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Health Technol Assess. 2015 Oct;19(80):1-218. doi: 10.3310/hta19800.
Uncertainty exists regarding the best management of patients with degenerative tears of the rotator cuff.
To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic and open rotator cuff repair in patients aged ≥ 50 years with degenerative rotator cuff tendon tears.
Two parallel-group randomised controlled trial.
Nineteen teaching and district general hospitals in the UK.
Patients (n = 273) aged ≥ 50 years with degenerative rotator cuff tendon tears.
Arthroscopic surgery and open rotator cuff repair, with surgeons using their usual and preferred method of arthroscopic or open repair. Follow-up was by telephone questionnaire at 2 and 8 weeks after surgery and by postal questionnaire at 8, 12 and 24 months after randomisation.
The Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) at 24 months was the primary outcome measure. Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of the shoulder was made at 12 months after surgery to assess the integrity of the repair.
The mean OSS improved from 26.3 [standard deviation (SD) 8.2] at baseline to 41.7 (SD 7.9) at 24 months for arthroscopic surgery and from 25.0 (SD 8.0) at baseline to 41.5 (SD 7.9) at 24 months for open surgery. When effect sizes are shown for the intervention, a negative sign indicates that an open procedure is favoured. For the intention-to-treat analysis, there was no statistical difference between the groups, the difference in OSS score at 24 months was -0.76 [95% confidence interval (CI) -2.75 to 1.22; p = 0.452] and the CI excluded the predetermined clinically important difference in the OSS of 3 points. There was also no statistical difference when the groups were compared per protocol (difference in OSS score -0.46, 95% CI -5.30 to 4.39; p = 0.854). The questionnaire response rate was > 86%. At 8 months, 77% of participants reported that shoulder problems were much or slightly better, and at 24 months this increased to 85%. There were no significant differences in mean cost between the arthroscopic group and the open repair group for any of the component resource-use categories, nor for the total follow-up costs at 24 months. The overall treatment cost at 2 years was £2567 (SD £176) for arthroscopic surgery and £2699 (SD £149) for open surgery, according to intention-to-treat analysis. For the per-protocol analysis there was a significant difference in total initial procedure-related costs between the arthroscopic group and the open repair group, with arthroscopic repair being more costly by £371 (95% CI £135 to £607). Total quality-adjusted life-years accrued at 24 months averaged 1.34 (SD 0.05) in the arthroscopic repair group and 1.35 (SD 0.05) in the open repair group, a non-significant difference of 0.01 (95% CI -0.11 to 0.10). The rate of re-tear was not significantly different across the randomised groups (46.4% and 38.6% for arthroscopic and open surgery, respectively). The participants with tears that were impossible to repair had the lowest OSSs, the participants with re-tears had slightly higher OSSs and the participants with healed repairs had the most improved OSSs. These findings were the same when analysed per protocol.
In patients aged > 50 years with a degenerative rotator cuff tear there is no difference in clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness between open repair and arthroscopic repair at 2 years for the primary outcome (OSS) and all other prespecified secondary outcomes. Future work should explore new methods to improve tendon healing and reduce the high rate of re-tears observed in this trial.
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN97804283.
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 80. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
对于肩袖退变撕裂患者的最佳治疗方法存在不确定性。
评估关节镜下和开放性肩袖修复术对年龄≥50岁的肩袖肌腱退变撕裂患者的临床疗效和成本效益。
两项平行组随机对照试验。
英国的19家教学医院和地区综合医院。
年龄≥50岁的肩袖肌腱退变撕裂患者(n = 273)。
关节镜手术和开放性肩袖修复术,外科医生采用其常用且偏爱的关节镜或开放性修复方法。术后2周和8周通过电话问卷进行随访,随机分组后8个月、12个月和24个月通过邮寄问卷进行随访。
24个月时的牛津肩部评分(OSS)是主要结局指标。术后12个月对肩部进行磁共振成像评估,以评估修复的完整性。
关节镜手术组患者的平均OSS从基线时的26.3[标准差(SD)8.2]提高到24个月时的41.7(SD 7.9),开放性手术组患者从基线时的25.0(SD 8.0)提高到24个月时的41.5(SD 7.9)。当显示干预措施的效应大小时,负号表示开放性手术更受青睐。在意向性分析中,两组之间无统计学差异,24个月时OSS评分的差异为-0.76[95%置信区间(CI)-2.75至1.22;p = 0.452],且CI排除了预先设定的OSS中具有临床意义的3分差异。按方案分析两组时也无统计学差异(OSS评分差异为-0.46,95%CI -5.30至4.39;p = 0.854)。问卷回复率>86%。在8个月时,77%的参与者报告肩部问题有很大改善或略有改善,到24个月时这一比例增至85%。关节镜组和开放性修复组在任何组成资源使用类别方面的平均成本均无显著差异,24个月时的总随访成本也无显著差异。根据意向性分析,2年时关节镜手术的总体治疗成本为2567英镑(SD 176英镑),开放性手术为2699英镑(SD 149英镑)。按方案分析时,关节镜组和开放性修复组在初始手术相关总成本方面存在显著差异,关节镜修复的成本高出371英镑(95%CI 135英镑至607英镑)。24个月时累计的总质量调整生命年在关节镜修复组平均为1.34(SD 0.05),在开放性修复组平均为1.35(SD 0.05),差异不显著,为0.01(95%CI -0.11至0.10)。随机分组的两组之间再撕裂率无显著差异(关节镜手术和开放性手术分别为46.4%和38.6%)。无法修复撕裂的参与者OSS最低,再撕裂的参与者OSS略高,修复愈合的参与者OSS改善最大。按方案分析时结果相同。
对于年龄>50岁的肩袖退变撕裂患者,在2年时,开放性修复和关节镜修复在主要结局(OSS)及所有其他预先指定的次要结局方面,临床疗效和成本效益均无差异。未来的工作应探索新方法以改善肌腱愈合并降低本试验中观察到的高再撕裂率。
当前受控试验ISRCTN97804283。
本项目由英国国家卫生研究院卫生技术评估计划资助,将在《卫生技术评估》全文发表;第19卷,第80期。有关更多项目信息,请访问英国国家卫生研究院期刊图书馆网站。