Division of Sports Medicine and Shoulder Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Fundación García-Cugat, Artroscopia GC, Hospital Quirón, and Mutualidad Catalana de Futbolistas, Barcelona, Spain.
Am J Sports Med. 2019 May;47(6):1496-1506. doi: 10.1177/0363546518774762. Epub 2018 Jun 15.
Surgical management of rotator cuff tears is controversial and complex, ranging from nonoperative management to reverse shoulder arthroplasty.
To systematically review and evaluate the outcomes of graft augmentation or interposition versus rotator cuff repair (RCR) alone and evaluate via meta-analysis whether the use of a graft leads to superior outcomes versus RCR alone.
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
An electronic literature search (Medline, Embase, CINAHL) was conducted. Studies with a minimum follow-up of 1 year and minimum sample size of 10 that provided clinical results of RCR or rotator cuff reconstruction using any type of augmentation tissue or matrix were included. Methodological quality was evaluated by assessment of the risk of bias in the included studies. Studies comparing outcomes of RCR with graft augmentation or interposition versus repair alone (control group) were subjected to meta-analysis.
The authors identified 774 articles and included 36 in the systematic review; 5 of the 36 studies underwent meta-analysis. Except for one outcome measure in a single study, all surgical interventions (RCR alone, RCR with augmentation, and RCR with interposition) improved clinical scores and outcome measures. Because of variability in study outcomes, no graft option was found to be superior. Compared with RCR alone, graft augmentation or interposition provided significantly lower retear rates ( P = .05) and higher American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores ( P = .005), but improvements in UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) scores ( P = .29) and pain scores ( P = .1) did not reach statistical significance.
In the meta-analysis, graft augmentation or interposition appeared to provide a lower retear rate and improved ASES scores when compared with RCR alone. Future prospective, randomized, controlled, and appropriately powered trials are needed for more definitive recommendations.
肩袖撕裂的手术治疗存在争议且复杂,从非手术治疗到反肩关节置换术均有涉及。
系统回顾和评估增强或间隔与单纯肩袖修复(RCR)相比的结果,并通过荟萃分析评估使用移植物是否比单纯 RCR 更能带来更好的结果。
系统回顾和荟萃分析。
进行了电子文献检索(Medline、Embase、CINAHL)。纳入了至少随访 1 年且样本量至少为 10 例的研究,这些研究提供了使用任何类型的增强组织或基质进行 RCR 或肩袖重建的临床结果。通过评估纳入研究的偏倚风险来评估方法学质量。将比较 RCR 与移植物增强或间隔与单独修复(对照组)的结果的研究进行荟萃分析。
作者确定了 774 篇文章,并对其中的 36 篇进行了系统回顾;36 项研究中有 5 项进行了荟萃分析。除了一项研究中的一项单一结果指标外,所有手术干预(单独的 RCR、RCR 增强和 RCR 间隔)都改善了临床评分和结果指标。由于研究结果的变异性,没有发现任何移植物选择更具优势。与单独的 RCR 相比,移植物增强或间隔提供了明显更低的再撕裂率(P=.05)和更高的美国肩肘外科医师协会(ASES)评分(P=.005),但 UCLA(加州大学洛杉矶分校)评分(P=.29)和疼痛评分(P=.1)的改善没有达到统计学意义。
在荟萃分析中,与单独的 RCR 相比,移植物增强或间隔似乎提供了更低的再撕裂率和改善的 ASES 评分。需要未来前瞻性、随机、对照和适当加权的试验,以提供更明确的建议。