University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire, Clifford Bridge Road, CV2 2DX Coventry, United Kingdom.
University Hospitals North Midlands, ST46QG Stoke, United Kingdom.
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2018 Oct;104(6):829-837. doi: 10.1016/j.otsr.2018.06.007. Epub 2018 Jul 20.
Transtendon repair (TTR) and tear completion and repair (TCR) are common repair techniques for partial thickness rotator cuff tears (PTRCTs). Previous systematic reviews have not demonstrated any advantage of either but have not specifically addressed early recovery.
To compare the outcomes of these two techniques in treating PTRCTs with respect to post-operative stiffness, delay in functional recovery and re-tear rates.
A systematic review of the Medline and EMBASE database was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Both cases series and comparative studies reporting functional outcomes, post-operative stiffness or re-tear rate after either TTR or TCR for PTRCTs were included.
The search strategy identified 21 studies (n=797); 4 comparative studies (n=214), 15 TTR (n=511) and 2 TCR case series (n=72). All four comparative studies included were randomised controlled trials. One RCT reported early outcomes and demonstrated significantly slower recovery in the TTR group at 3 months (ASES p=0.037, Constant score p=0.019 and pain p=0.001). Similarly, data from the case series suggested that the rate of post-operative stiffness was higher in the TTR group. All comparative studies demonstrated no significant difference at final follow up in terms of pain, range of motion or functional score.
The results of this systematic review suggest that transtendinous repairs are associated with more pain and worse function during the first 3 months. This suggests that tear completion and repair should be the preferred option, as comparative studies do not demonstrate any long-term advantage of transtendinous repair.
II, systematic review.
腱膜切开修复术(TTR)和撕裂完成修复术(TCR)是治疗部分厚度肩袖撕裂(PTRCT)的常见修复技术。先前的系统评价并未显示出任何一种技术的优势,但并未专门针对早期恢复进行评估。
比较这两种技术治疗 PTRCT 的疗效,包括术后僵硬、功能恢复延迟和再撕裂率。
按照 PRISMA 指南对 Medline 和 EMBASE 数据库进行系统评价。纳入报告了功能结果、术后僵硬或再撕裂率的病例系列和比较研究,这些研究均为 PTRCT 采用 TTR 或 TCR 治疗。
搜索策略共确定了 21 项研究(n=797);4 项比较研究(n=214),15 项 TTR(n=511)和 2 项 TCR 病例系列(n=72)。所有 4 项比较研究均为随机对照试验。其中一项 RCT 报告了早期结果,表明 TTR 组在 3 个月时恢复较慢(ASES p=0.037,Constant 评分 p=0.019 和疼痛 p=0.001)。同样,病例系列的数据表明 TTR 组术后僵硬的发生率较高。所有比较研究在最终随访时均未显示疼痛、活动范围或功能评分有显著差异。
这项系统评价的结果表明,腱膜切开修复术在最初 3 个月内与更多疼痛和更差的功能相关。这表明撕裂完成修复术应该是首选,因为比较研究并未显示腱膜切开修复术有任何长期优势。
II 级,系统评价。