Liu Hongzhi, Song Xinqiu, Liu Pei, Yu Huachen, Zhang Qidong, Guo Wanshou
Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Shandong University, Jinan, China.
Orthop J Sports Med. 2021 Apr 23;9(4):2325967121993805. doi: 10.1177/2325967121993805. eCollection 2021 Apr.
Controversy exists concerning whether tenotomy or tenodesis is the optimal surgical treatment option for proximal biceps tendon lesions.
To evaluate the clinical outcomes after arthroscopic tenodesis and tenotomy in the treatment of long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) lesions.
Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.
A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that compared the clinical efficacy of tenotomy with that of tenodesis for LHBT lesions. A standardized data extraction form was predesigned to obtain bibliographic information of the study as well as patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome data. A random-effects model was used to pool quantitative data from the primary outcomes.
A total of 21 eligible studies were separated into 3 methodological groups: (1) 4 RCTs with level 1 evidence, (2) 3 RCTs and 4 prospective cohort studies with level 2 evidence, and (3) 10 retrospective cohort studies with level 3 to 4 evidence. Analysis of the 3 groups demonstrated a significantly higher risk of the Popeye sign after tenotomy versus tenodesis (group 1: risk ratio [RR], 3.29 [95% CI, 1.92-5.49]; group 2: RR, 2.35 [95% CI, 1.43-3.85]; and group 3: RR, 2.57 [95% CI, 1.33-4.98]). Arm cramping pain remained significantly higher after tenotomy only in the retrospective cohort group (RR, 2.17 [95% CI, 1.20-3.95]). The Constant score for tenotomy was significantly worse than that for tenodesis in the prospective cohort group (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.47 [95% CI, -0.73 to -0.21]), as were the forearm supination strength index (SMD, -0.75 [95% CI, -1.28 to -0.21]) and the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) score (SMD, -0.60 [95% CI, -0.94 to -0.27]).
The results demonstrated that compared with tenodesis, tenotomy had a higher risk of a Popeye deformity in all 3 study groups; worse functional outcomes in terms of the Constant score, forearm supination strength index, and SST score according to prospective cohort studies; and a higher incidence of arm cramping pain according to retrospective cohort studies.
对于肱二头肌近端肌腱损伤,肌腱切断术或肌腱固定术哪种是最佳手术治疗方案存在争议。
评估关节镜下肌腱固定术和肌腱切断术治疗肱二头肌长头肌腱(LHBT)损伤后的临床疗效。
系统评价;证据等级为4级。
通过检索PubMed、Cochrane图书馆、科学网和Embase进行系统评价,以识别比较肌腱切断术与肌腱固定术治疗LHBT损伤临床疗效的随机对照试验(RCT)和队列研究。预先设计标准化的数据提取表,以获取研究的文献信息以及患者、干预措施、对照和结局数据。采用随机效应模型汇总主要结局的定量数据。
总共21项符合条件的研究被分为3个方法学组:(1)4项1级证据的RCT,(2)3项2级证据的RCT和4项前瞻性队列研究,以及(3)10项3至4级证据的回顾性队列研究。对这3组的分析表明,与肌腱固定术相比,肌腱切断术后出现“大力水手”征的风险显著更高(第1组:风险比[RR],3.29[95%CI,1.92 - 5.49];第2组:RR,2.35[95%CI,1.43 - 3.85];第3组:RR,2.57[95%CI,1.33 - 4.98])。仅在回顾性队列组中,肌腱切断术后手臂抽筋疼痛仍显著更高(RR,2.17[95%CI,1.20 - 3.95])。在前瞻性队列组中,肌腱切断术的Constant评分显著低于肌腱固定术(标准化均数差[SMD],-0.47[95%CI,-0.73至-0.21]),前臂旋后力量指数(SMD,-0.75[95%CI,-1.28至-0.21])和简单肩部试验(SST)评分(SMD,-0.60[95%CI,-0.94至-0.27])也是如此。
结果表明,与肌腱固定术相比,肌腱切断术在所有3个研究组中出现“大力水手”畸形的风险更高;根据前瞻性队列研究,在Constant评分、前臂旋后力量指数和SST评分方面功能结局更差;根据回顾性队列研究,手臂抽筋疼痛的发生率更高。