Houston Methodist Hospital, Department of Orthopedics & Sports Medicine, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
Rocky Vista University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Parker, Colorado, U.S.A.
Arthroscopy. 2024 Apr;40(4):1300-1308. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2023.08.072. Epub 2023 Sep 19.
To perform a systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing clinical outcomes of rotator cuff repair with and without patch augmentation.
A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify randomized controlled trials that directly compared outcomes between rotator cuff repair (RCR) with versus without patch augmentation. Patients were evaluated based on retear rate, histological outcomes, radiological outcomes, and patient-reported outcomes (Constant score; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES] score; University of California-Los Angeles shoulder scale; Simple Shoulder Test; EuroQol-visual analog scale; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score; and PENN shoulder score questionnaire).
Six studies (1 level I, 5 level II) met inclusion criteria, including 188 patients undergoing RCR alone (Control) and 193 patients undergoing RCR with patch augmentation (Patch). Patient age ranged from 56.0 to 68.0 years. The mean follow-up time ranged from 14.0 to 68.4 months. The average body mass index ranged from 24.4 to 29.4, and the overall percentage of males ranged from 32.5% to 82.3%. Three studies found significantly decreased retear rates with patch augmentation. The retear rate ranged from 34.0% to 65.4% in the Control group and 9.1% to 52.9% in the Patch group. One study found a significant difference for the Constant score favoring the Patch group. Two studies found a significant difference for the ASES score favoring the Patch group. One study found significantly better results with patch augmentation in terms of repaired tendon thickness and footprint coverage, based on magnetic resonance imaging.
Patch augmentation of rotator cuff repairs may be associated with lower retear rates for large tears. There is limited evidence to suggest that patch augmentation is associated with improved patient-reported outcomes.
Level II, systematic review of level I and II studies.
对比较肩袖修补术加与不加补片修补的临床结果的随机对照试验进行系统评价。
根据 PRISMA(系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目)指南,通过搜索 PubMed、Cochrane 图书馆和 Embase,对直接比较肩袖修补术(RCR)加与不加补片修补的结果的随机对照试验进行系统评价。患者根据再撕裂率、组织学结果、影像学结果和患者报告的结果(Constant 评分;美国肩肘外科医师协会 [ASES] 评分;加利福尼亚大学洛杉矶肩量表;简单肩测试;EuroQol 视觉模拟量表;手臂、肩部和手残疾量表;以及 PENN 肩部评分问卷)进行评估。
6 项研究(1 项 1 级,5 项 2 级)符合纳入标准,包括 188 例单独接受 RCR(对照组)和 193 例接受 RCR 加补片修补(补片组)的患者。患者年龄 56.0 至 68.0 岁。平均随访时间 14.0 至 68.4 个月。平均体重指数 24.4 至 29.4,男性总体比例 32.5%至 82.3%。3 项研究发现补片修补可显著降低再撕裂率。对照组的再撕裂率为 34.0%至 65.4%,补片组为 9.1%至 52.9%。1 项研究发现 Constant 评分有显著差异,补片组更好。2 项研究发现 ASES 评分有显著差异,补片组更好。1 项研究发现磁共振成像显示,补片修补在修复肌腱厚度和覆盖足迹方面有更好的结果。
肩袖修补术加补片修补可能与大撕裂的再撕裂率较低有关。有有限的证据表明,补片修补与改善患者报告的结果有关。
2 级,对 1 级和 2 级研究的系统评价。