Ren Yi-Ming, Duan Yuan-Hui, Sun Yun-Bo, Yang Tao, Hou Wei-Yu, Tian Meng-Qiang
Department of Joint and Sport Medicine, Tianjin Union Medical Center, Jieyuan Road 190, Hongqiao District, Tianjin, 300121, People's Republic of China.
J Orthop Surg Res. 2019 Feb 13;14(1):48. doi: 10.1186/s13018-019-1096-y.
Labral repair and biceps tenotomy and tenodesis are routine operations for type II superior labrum anterior posterior (SLAP) lesion of the shoulder, but evidence of their superiority is lacking. We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic repair versus biceps tenotomy and tenodesis intervention.
The eight studies were acquired from PubMed, Medline, Embase, CNKI, and Cochrane Library. The data were extracted by two of the coauthors independently and were analyzed by RevMan 5.3. Mean differences (MDs), odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias Tool and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess risk of bias.
Eight studies including two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and six observational studies were assessed. The methodological quality of the trials ranged from low to moderate. The pooled results of UCLA score, SST score, and complications showed that the differences were not statistically significant between the two interventions. The difference of ASES score and satisfaction rate was statistically significant between arthroscopic repair and biceps tenotomy and tenodesis intervention, and arthroscopic biceps tenotomy and tenodesis treatment was more effective. Sensitivity analysis proved the stability of the pooled results, and there were too less included articles to verify the publication bias.
Both arthroscopic repair and biceps tenotomy and tenodesis interventions had benefits in type II SLAP lesions. Arthroscopic biceps tenotomy and tenodesis treatment provides better clinical outcome in ASES score and satisfaction rate and comparable complications compared with arthroscopic repair treatment. In view of the heterogeneity and confounding factors, whether these conclusions are applicable should be further determined in future studies.
盂唇修复术以及肱二头肌切断术和固定术是治疗Ⅱ型肩峰下盂唇前后部(SLAP)损伤的常规手术,但缺乏其优越性的证据。我们进行了这项系统评价和荟萃分析,以比较关节镜修复与肱二头肌切断术和固定术干预的临床结果。
从PubMed、Medline、Embase、中国知网和Cochrane图书馆获取八项研究。数据由两名共同作者独立提取,并使用RevMan 5.3进行分析。计算平均差(MDs)、比值比(ORs)和95%置信区间(CIs)。使用Cochrane协作网的偏倚风险工具和纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表评估偏倚风险。
评估了八项研究,包括两项随机对照试验(RCT)和六项观察性研究。试验的方法学质量从低到中等。加利福尼亚大学洛杉矶分校(UCLA)评分、简单肩部测试(SST)评分和并发症的汇总结果表明,两种干预措施之间的差异无统计学意义。美国肩肘外科医师学会(ASES)评分和满意率在关节镜修复与肱二头肌切断术和固定术干预之间的差异有统计学意义,关节镜下肱二头肌切断术和固定术治疗更有效。敏感性分析证明了汇总结果的稳定性,纳入的文章太少,无法验证发表偏倚。
关节镜修复以及肱二头肌切断术和固定术干预对Ⅱ型SLAP损伤均有益处。与关节镜修复治疗相比,关节镜下肱二头肌切断术和固定术治疗在ASES评分和满意率方面提供了更好的临床结果,并发症相当。鉴于存在异质性和混杂因素,这些结论是否适用应在未来的研究中进一步确定。