Nazari Goris, MacDermid Joy C, Bobos Pavlos
School of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Health Sciences.
Collaborative Program in Musculoskeletal Health Research, Bone and Joint Institute, Western University.
Physiother Can. 2020 Summer;72(3):282-297. doi: 10.3138/ptc-2018-0111.
Numerous systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have emerged that investigate the effectiveness of conservative (supervised exercises) versus surgical (arthroscopic subacromial decompression) interventions for patients with shoulder impingement; however, there are disparities in the quality of the evidence synthesized. The purpose of this study was to conduct an overview of SRs of RCTs to critically appraise the evidence and establish the current state of effectiveness of conservative versus surgical interventions on clinical outcomes among patients with shoulder impingement. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PubMed electronic databases were searched for January 2008 to September 2018, and we found SRs of RCTs of patients with shoulder impingement, subacromial pain syndrome, or subacromial impingement syndrome who had received conservative versus surgical interventions to improve outcomes. Two authors extracted the data, and two independent review authors assessed the risk of bias and quality. A total of 15 SRs were identified. One was rated as high quality, 7 as moderate quality, 5 as low quality, and 2 as critically low quality. The results were in line with one another, indicating that no differences in outcomes existed between conservative and surgical interventions among patients with shoulder impingement. There were no clinically important or statistically significant differences in outcomes between conservative versus surgical interventions among patients with subacromial impingement syndrome. To enhance clinical outcomes in this patient population, shoulder-specific exercises that aim to improve muscle strength and flexibility must be considered as the first line of conservative treatment.
大量关于随机对照试验(RCT)的系统评价(SR)出现了,这些评价调查了保守治疗(监督下的锻炼)与手术治疗(关节镜下肩峰下减压)对肩峰撞击症患者的有效性;然而,综合证据的质量存在差异。本研究的目的是对RCT的SR进行概述,以严格评估证据,并确定保守治疗与手术治疗对肩峰撞击症患者临床结局有效性的当前状态。检索了MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL和PubMed电子数据库2008年1月至2018年9月的数据,我们发现了对接受保守治疗与手术治疗以改善结局的肩峰撞击症、肩峰下疼痛综合征或肩峰下撞击综合征患者的RCT的SR。两位作者提取数据,两位独立的综述作者评估偏倚风险和质量。共识别出15项SR。1项被评为高质量,7项为中等质量,5项为低质量,2项为极低质量。结果相互一致,表明肩峰撞击症患者的保守治疗和手术治疗在结局上没有差异。肩峰下撞击综合征患者的保守治疗与手术治疗在结局上没有临床重要或统计学上的显著差异。为了改善该患者群体的临床结局,旨在提高肌肉力量和灵活性的肩部特定锻炼必须被视为保守治疗的一线方法。