Prasathaporn Niti, Thamrongskulsiri Napatpong, Itthipanichpong Thun, Limskul Danaithep
Department of Orthopaedics, Ramkhamhaeng Hospital, Bangkok, Thailand.
Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Orthop J Sports Med. 2022 Nov 25;10(11):23259671221135604. doi: 10.1177/23259671221135604. eCollection 2022 Nov.
In conventional double-row repair for rotator cuff tears, tying the medial row of anchor sutures can strangulate the tendon. The knotless medial row technique has been recommended to improve vascularity and reduce retear rates. The researchers divided the retear pattern into 2 categories: type 1 (failure at the tendon-bone interface) and type 2 (failure at the musculotendinous junction with healed footprint).
To compare studies on knot-tying versus knotless double-row repair for rotator cuff tears according to retear type and clinical and radiological outcomes.
Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.
A search of the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane databases was performed following the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Included were studies that directly compared the knot-tying and knotless double-row techniques and provided postoperative patient-reported outcomes and retear rates. The Methodology Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria were used for methodological quality assessment of the included studies. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) were calculated for continuous outcomes.
Included were 12 studies (n = 1411 shoulders); 1 study had level 1 evidence, 3 studies had level 2 evidence, and 8 studies had level 3 evidence. The MINORS score ranged from 15 to 19, indicating that the methodology was fair to good. There was no statistically significant difference in retear rate between techniques (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.67-1.47; = .96); however, more type 1 retears were seen in the knotless technique (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.23-0.77; = .005), and more type 2 retears were seen in the knot-tying technique (OR, 3.15; 95% CI, 1.70-5.83; = .0003). Higher postoperative Constant scores were seen in the knot-tying technique (MD, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.03-2.53; = .04); however, there were no significant differences between techniques regarding other postoperative outcomes.
There was no significant difference in overall retear rates between the knotless and knot-tying techniques, and both techniques demonstrated similar clinical outcomes. However, type 2 retear rates were significantly greater after knot-tying repair, and type 1 retear rates were significantly greater after knotless repair.
在传统的肩袖撕裂双排修复术中,系紧内侧排锚钉缝线可能会压迫肌腱。推荐使用无结内侧排技术来改善血运并降低再撕裂率。研究人员将再撕裂模式分为2类:1型(肌腱-骨界面处失败)和2型(肌腱-肌肉结合处愈合但足迹处失败)。
根据再撕裂类型以及临床和影像学结果,比较肩袖撕裂的打结与无结双排修复术的相关研究。
系统评价;证据等级,3级。
按照2020年系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南,对PubMed、Embase、Scopus和Cochrane数据库进行检索。纳入的研究需直接比较打结和无结双排技术,并提供术后患者报告的结果和再撕裂率。采用非随机研究方法学指数(MINORS)标准对纳入研究进行方法学质量评估。对二分结果计算比值比(OR),对连续结果计算平均差(MD)。
纳入12项研究(共1411例肩部病例);1项研究有1级证据,3项研究有2级证据,8项研究有3级证据。MINORS评分范围为15至19,表明方法学质量为中等至良好。两种技术在再撕裂率方面无统计学显著差异(OR,0.99;95%CI,0.67 - 1.47;P = 0.96);然而,无结技术中1型再撕裂更多见(OR,0.42;95%CI,0.23 - 0.77;P = 0.005),打结技术中2型再撕裂更多见(OR,3.15;95%CI,1.70 - 5.83;P = 0.0003)。打结技术术后Constant评分更高(MD,1.28;95%CI,0.03 - 2.53;P = 0.04);然而,在其他术后结果方面,两种技术之间无显著差异。
无结和打结技术在总体再撕裂率上无显著差异,且两种技术的临床结果相似。然而,打结修复术后2型再撕裂率显著更高,无结修复术后1型再撕裂率显著更高。