Kajita Yukihiro, Iwahori Yusuke, Harada Yohei, Takahashi Ryosuke, Sagami Ryosuke, Deie Masataka
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Aichi Medical University, Japan; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Ichinomiya Nishi Hospital, Japan.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Asahi Hospital, Japan.
J Orthop Sci. 2023 Jul;28(4):778-783. doi: 10.1016/j.jos.2022.05.011. Epub 2022 Jun 7.
This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and cuff integrity of the triple-row technique and suture-bridge technique in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.
Among patients with more than two years of follow-up (mean 27.4 ± 7.2 months), 71 shoulders that underwent the triple-row technique (46 male and 25 female; mean age, 62.7 ± 10.1 years; small-to-medium tears, 42 shoulders; large-to-massive tears, 29 shoulders) and 64 shoulders that underwent the suture-bridge technique (43 male and 21 female; mean age, 65.5 ± 8.4 years; small-to-medium tears, 46 shoulders; large-to-massive tears, 18 shoulders) were examined. The patient background, operation time, number of anchors used during the operation, Japanese Orthopedic Association (JOA) score, Active range of motion, and retear rate were evaluated and compared between the two techniques.
There was no significant difference in the patient background between the two techniques. The JOA score and Active range of motion were significantly improved compared to preoperative scores; however, there were no difference between the two techniques. The number of anchors used during the operation was 5.4 ± 1.6 for the triple-row technique and 4.1 ± 1.9 for the suture-bridge technique. Although significantly more anchors were used for the triple-row technique, there was no significant difference in the operation time between the two techniques. The retear rate was 7.1% for small-to-medium tears and 3.4% for large-to-massive tears using the triple-row technique, and 10.9% for small-to-medium tears and 33.3% for large-to-massive tears using the suture-bridge technique. The retear rate was significantly lower in large-to-massive tears when using the triple-row technique.
The triple-row technique was an effective method compared to the suture-bridge technique in cases with large-to-massive tears.
本研究旨在比较关节镜下肩袖修补术中双排技术和缝线桥技术的临床疗效及袖口完整性。
在随访超过两年（平均27.4±7.2个月）的患者中，对71例接受双排技术的肩部（46例男性和25例女性；平均年龄62.7±10.1岁；中小撕裂42例肩部；大至巨大撕裂29例肩部）和64例接受缝线桥技术的肩部（43例男性和21例女性；平均年龄65.5±8.4岁；中小撕裂46例肩部；大至巨大撕裂18例肩部）进行检查。评估并比较了两种技术的患者背景、手术时间、手术中使用的锚钉数量、日本骨科协会（JOA）评分、主动活动范围和再撕裂率。
两种技术的患者背景无显著差异。与术前评分相比，JOA评分和主动活动范围均有显著改善；然而，两种技术之间没有差异。双排技术手术中使用的锚钉数量为5.4±1.6个，缝线桥技术为4.1±1.9个。虽然双排技术使用的锚钉明显更多，但两种技术的手术时间没有显著差异。双排技术中小至中等撕裂的再撕裂率为7.1%，大至巨大撕裂为3.4%，缝线桥技术中小至中等撕裂的再撕裂率为10.9%，大至巨大撕裂为33.3%。使用双排技术时，大至巨大撕裂的再撕裂率显著较低。
在大至巨大撕裂的病例中，与缝线桥技术相比，双排技术是一种有效的方法。
