Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, 13 Rama IV Rd, Khwaeng Pathum Wan, Khet Pathum Wan, Bangkok, 10330, Thailand.
Department of Orthopaedics, Faculty of Medicine, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2023 Oct;31(10):4575-4584. doi: 10.1007/s00167-023-07502-z. Epub 2023 Jul 15.
This study aimed to review studies comparing transtendon repair (TTR) with tear completion repair (TCR) techniques for partial articular-sided supraspinatus tendon avulsion (PASTA) lesions according to postoperative patient-reported outcomes and complications.
Databases, including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane, were searched for studies published between 2008 and 2022 that directly compared the postoperative patient-reported outcomes and complications of the TTR and TCR techniques for PASTA lesions. Odds ratios (ORs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes, while mean differences (MDs) were calculated for continuous outcomes.
A total of seven studies (497 shoulders) were analysed. No statistically significant differences in the postoperative clinical outcomes at the final follow-up were observed between the TTR and TCR techniques for PASTA lesions. The overall retear rates of the TTR and TCR techniques were 7.7% and 11.6%, respectively (corresponding healing rates were 92.3% and 88.4%), whereas the overall occurrence rates of adhesive capsulitis were 4.7% and 3.3%, respectively. Furthermore, no significant difference was observed in postoperative range of motion (forward flexion, MD = - 1.22, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) - 5.28 to 3.34, n.s.; external rotation, MD = - 1.39, 95% CI - 3.19 to 0.42, n.s.), overall retear rate (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.29-1.08, n.s.), and occurrence rate of adhesive capsulitis (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.35-3.52, n.s.) between the two techniques.
Both techniques improve clinical outcomes while having a low complication rate and a high rate of healing. No significant difference in clinical outcomes was observed between the two techniques.
III.
本研究旨在根据术后患者报告的结果和并发症,回顾比较经腱修复(TTR)与撕裂完成修复(TCR)技术治疗部分关节侧冈上肌腱撕脱(PASTA)病变的研究。
检索了 2008 年至 2022 年期间发表的直接比较 TTR 和 TCR 技术治疗 PASTA 病变术后患者报告结果和并发症的研究。对于二分类结果,计算了比值比(OR);对于连续结果,计算了平均差异(MD)。
共分析了 7 项研究(497 例肩部)。TTR 和 TCR 技术治疗 PASTA 病变的术后临床结果在最终随访时无统计学差异。TTR 和 TCR 技术的总体再撕裂率分别为 7.7%和 11.6%(相应的愈合率分别为 92.3%和 88.4%),而粘连性关节囊炎的总发生率分别为 4.7%和 3.3%。此外,术后活动范围(前屈,MD=-1.22,95%置信区间(95%CI)-5.28 至 3.34,无统计学意义;外旋,MD=-1.39,95%CI-3.19 至 0.42,无统计学意义)、总体再撕裂率(OR 0.72,95%CI 0.29-1.08,无统计学意义)和粘连性关节囊炎的发生率(OR 1.11,95%CI 0.35-3.52,无统计学意义)在两种技术之间无显著差异。
两种技术都能改善临床结果,同时并发症发生率低,愈合率高。两种技术的临床结果无显著差异。
III 级。