Imbergamo Casey, Sequeira Sean, Bano Joseph, Rate William R, Gould Heath
MedStar Orthopaedic Institute, Union Memorial Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
School of Medicine, Georgetown University, Washington DC, USA.
Orthop J Sports Med. 2022 Aug 22;10(8):23259671221120212. doi: 10.1177/23259671221120212. eCollection 2022 Aug.
Transosseous tunnel (TO) repair is considered the gold standard for patellar tendon rupture; however, suture anchor (SA) repair has emerged as a viable alternative in recent years. Although both these techniques are used widely in clinical practice, the most biomechanically optimal construct for patellar tendon repair remains unknown.
To examine published studies on the biomechanical properties of TO and SA fixation for patellar tendon repair in terms of ultimate load to failure and cyclic gap formation. The null hypothesis was that there would be no significant difference in either outcome measure between the groups.
Systematic review.
A systematic review using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify studies that analyzed the biomechanical properties of SA and TO techniques for repair of a ruptured patellar tendon. The search phrase implemented was "patellar tendon repair." Meta-analysis was performed to provide a quantitative comparison of the 2 techniques with regard to ultimate load to failure and cyclic gap displacement. Weighted averages were calculated for all quantitative outcomes, and outcomes were summarized in a forest plot. A random-effects model was used to account for the heterogeneity among the included studies in the final statistical analysis.
Of 875 studies initially screened, the inclusion criteria were met by 7 studies, including 128 cadaveric specimens (66 SA, 62 TO). The pooled analysis from 6 studies reporting on gap displacement revealed a statistically significant difference in favor of SA versus TO fixation ( < .001). Pooled analysis from 7 studies reporting on ultimate load to failure did not reveal a statistically significant difference between the use of SA and TO for tendon repair ( = .465).
Our systematic review revealed that the use of SA fixation for patellar tendon repair was associated with lower cyclic gap displacement when compared with TO fixation. There was no significant difference in ultimate load to failure between the repair techniques.
经骨隧道(TO)修复被认为是髌腱断裂修复的金标准;然而,近年来缝线锚钉(SA)修复已成为一种可行的替代方法。尽管这两种技术在临床实践中都被广泛应用,但髌腱修复的最具生物力学优势的结构仍不明确。
从失效的极限载荷和循环间隙形成方面,研究已发表的关于TO和SA固定用于髌腱修复的生物力学特性的研究。无效假设是两组之间在任何一项结果指标上均无显著差异。
系统评价。
按照PRISMA(系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目)指南进行系统评价,通过检索PubMed、Cochrane图书馆和Embase来识别分析SA和TO技术修复髌腱断裂生物力学特性的研究。实施的检索词为“髌腱修复”。进行Meta分析以对这两种技术在失效的极限载荷和循环间隙位移方面进行定量比较。计算所有定量结果的加权平均值,并在森林图中总结结果。在最终统计分析中使用随机效应模型来考虑纳入研究之间的异质性。
在最初筛选的875项研究中,7项研究符合纳入标准,包括128个尸体标本(66个SA,62个TO)。6项报告间隙位移的研究的汇总分析显示,SA固定相对于TO固定在统计学上有显著差异(<0.001)。7项报告失效极限载荷的研究的汇总分析未显示SA和TO用于肌腱修复之间有统计学上的显著差异(=0.465)。
我们的系统评价显示,与TO固定相比,SA固定用于髌腱修复时循环间隙位移更低。修复技术在失效的极限载荷方面无显著差异。