van Deurzen Derek Friedrich Petrus, Scholtes Vanessa Antoinet Bernice, Willigenburg Nienke Willemien, Gurnani Navin, Verweij Lukas Pieter Eduard, van den Bekerom Michel Pieter Jozef
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Joint Research, OLVG, Oosterpark 9, 1090 HM, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2016 Aug 30;17(1):375. doi: 10.1186/s12891-016-1230-5.
Optimal treatment of the diseased long head of the biceps (LHB) tendon during rotator cuff repair remains a topic of debate: tenotomy or tenodesis. A recent meta analysis revealed no difference in strength or functional outcome between treatments. The included studies varied in methodological quality, and only two were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). As strong evidence in favor of either tenotomy or tenodesis is still lacking, we designed this randomized controlled trial to compare functional outcomes after tenotomy and tenodesis when performed in adjunct to arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.
Patients older than 50 years with a supraspinatus and/or infraspinatus tendon rupture sized smaller than 3 cm, who are encountered with LHB pathology, will be randomized to either LHB tenotomy or LHB tenodesis. Clinical and patient-reported data will be collected pre-operatively, 6 weeks, 3 months and 1 year after surgery. Primary outcome is overall shoulder function evaluated with the Constant score at 1 year after surgery. As additional measures of shoulder function, two patient reported outcomes (the Dutch Oxford Shoulder Test and the Disabilities of the Arm Shoulder and Hand questionnaire) will be assessed. Other evaluations include cosmetic appearance evaluated by the "Popeye" deformity, elbow flexion strength, arm cramping pain, MRI-based location of the biceps tendon, quality of life, and duration of surgery. To detect non-inferiority with a one-sided, two-sample t-test with 80 % power and a significance level (alpha) of 0.025, the required sample size is 98 patients.
Treatment of LHB tendon lesions is performed differently around the world and meta analyses do not provide conclusive evidence in favor of one of these treatments. This study will strengthen evidence on the risks and benefits of LHB tenotomy and tenodesis in adjunct to a rotator cuff repair, which is important for managing patient expectations.
Dutch Trial Register ( NTR3255 ) January 12, 2012, ClinicalTrials.gov (ID NCT02655848 ) January 14, 2016, retrospectively registered.
在肩袖修复过程中,肱二头肌长头(LHB)肌腱病变的最佳治疗方法仍是一个有争议的话题:肌腱切断术还是肌腱固定术。最近的一项荟萃分析显示,两种治疗方法在力量或功能结果方面没有差异。纳入的研究方法学质量各不相同,只有两项是随机对照试验(RCT)。由于仍然缺乏支持肌腱切断术或肌腱固定术的有力证据,我们设计了这项随机对照试验,以比较在关节镜下肩袖修复术中同时进行肌腱切断术和肌腱固定术后的功能结果。
年龄超过50岁、冈上肌和/或冈下肌肌腱破裂小于3厘米且伴有LHB病变的患者,将被随机分为LHB肌腱切断术组或LHB肌腱固定术组。术前、术后6周、3个月和1年收集临床和患者报告的数据。主要结局是术后1年用Constant评分评估的整体肩部功能。作为肩部功能的额外测量指标,将评估两项患者报告的结局(荷兰牛津肩部试验和手臂、肩部和手部功能障碍问卷)。其他评估包括通过“大力水手”畸形评估的外观、肘部屈曲力量、手臂抽筋疼痛、基于MRI的肱二头肌肌腱位置、生活质量和手术持续时间。为了用单侧两样本t检验检测非劣效性,检验效能为80%,显著性水平(α)为0.025,所需样本量为98例患者。
世界各地对LHB肌腱损伤的治疗方法不同,荟萃分析也没有提供支持其中一种治疗方法的确凿证据。本研究将加强关于LHB肌腱切断术和肌腱固定术在肩袖修复术中的风险和益处的证据,这对于管理患者的期望很重要。
荷兰试验注册库(NTR3255),2012年1月12日;ClinicalTrials.gov(ID NCT02655848),2016年1月14日,回顾性注册。