Cargando…

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Comparing Clinical Outcomes After Concurrent Rotator Cuff Repair and Long Head Biceps Tenodesis or Tenotomy

CONTEXT: A comparison of clinical outcomes after long head of biceps (LHB) tenotomy or tenodesis performed concurrently with rotator cuff repair (RCR) is of interest to physicians and patients. OBJECTIVE: A systematic review of clinical outcome studies examining LHB tenotomy or tenodesis performed c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Leroux, Timothy, Chahal, Jaskarndip, Wasserstein, David, Verma, Nikhil N., Romeo, Anthony A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4481674/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26137174
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1941738114539627
_version_ 1782378307728179200
author Leroux, Timothy
Chahal, Jaskarndip
Wasserstein, David
Verma, Nikhil N.
Romeo, Anthony A.
author_facet Leroux, Timothy
Chahal, Jaskarndip
Wasserstein, David
Verma, Nikhil N.
Romeo, Anthony A.
author_sort Leroux, Timothy
collection PubMed
description CONTEXT: A comparison of clinical outcomes after long head of biceps (LHB) tenotomy or tenodesis performed concurrently with rotator cuff repair (RCR) is of interest to physicians and patients. OBJECTIVE: A systematic review of clinical outcome studies examining LHB tenotomy or tenodesis performed concurrently with RCR. Secondarily, perform a meta-analysis of data from comparative studies. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1946 to week 30 of 2013) and EMBASE (1980 to week 30 of 2013). STUDY SELECTION: Levels 1 through 4 studies reporting clinical outcomes of concurrent RCR and LHB tenotomy or tenodesis with minimum 1-year follow-up. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers identified eligible studies and applied the exclusion criteria. Clinical outcome data, including functional outcome score(s), biceps deformity and cramping, and patient satisfaction, were extracted. Clinical outcome data from included studies were pooled (weighted according to study size) and reported. A meta-analysis was performed only on outcomes extracted from comparative studies (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Twelve studies (N = 565 patients; mean age, 61.3 years; 46.3% men) were included. Of these, 6 (N = 263) included RCR and LHB tenotomy and 9 (N = 302) included RCR and LHB tenodesis. A meta-analysis was performed on 3 comparative studies (levels 1 and 2), demonstrating that the postoperative Constant score at a mean follow-up of 25.5 months was significantly greater after tenodesis (92.8 [tenodesis] vs 90.6 [tenotomy], P < 0.01); however, this difference was less than the reported minimal clinically important difference of 10.4 points. Similarly, the rate of biceps deformity was significantly less after tenodesis (15.5% [tenotomy] vs 3.9% [tenodesis], P < 0.01); however, most patients were not bothered by it. There were no significant differences in the rate of biceps cramping or patient satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Although the postoperative Constant score and rate of biceps deformity favor LHB tenodesis statistically, the clinical significance appears negligible.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4481674
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44816742016-07-01 A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Comparing Clinical Outcomes After Concurrent Rotator Cuff Repair and Long Head Biceps Tenodesis or Tenotomy Leroux, Timothy Chahal, Jaskarndip Wasserstein, David Verma, Nikhil N. Romeo, Anthony A. Sports Health Focus Topic: Upper Extremity CONTEXT: A comparison of clinical outcomes after long head of biceps (LHB) tenotomy or tenodesis performed concurrently with rotator cuff repair (RCR) is of interest to physicians and patients. OBJECTIVE: A systematic review of clinical outcome studies examining LHB tenotomy or tenodesis performed concurrently with RCR. Secondarily, perform a meta-analysis of data from comparative studies. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1946 to week 30 of 2013) and EMBASE (1980 to week 30 of 2013). STUDY SELECTION: Levels 1 through 4 studies reporting clinical outcomes of concurrent RCR and LHB tenotomy or tenodesis with minimum 1-year follow-up. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers identified eligible studies and applied the exclusion criteria. Clinical outcome data, including functional outcome score(s), biceps deformity and cramping, and patient satisfaction, were extracted. Clinical outcome data from included studies were pooled (weighted according to study size) and reported. A meta-analysis was performed only on outcomes extracted from comparative studies (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Twelve studies (N = 565 patients; mean age, 61.3 years; 46.3% men) were included. Of these, 6 (N = 263) included RCR and LHB tenotomy and 9 (N = 302) included RCR and LHB tenodesis. A meta-analysis was performed on 3 comparative studies (levels 1 and 2), demonstrating that the postoperative Constant score at a mean follow-up of 25.5 months was significantly greater after tenodesis (92.8 [tenodesis] vs 90.6 [tenotomy], P < 0.01); however, this difference was less than the reported minimal clinically important difference of 10.4 points. Similarly, the rate of biceps deformity was significantly less after tenodesis (15.5% [tenotomy] vs 3.9% [tenodesis], P < 0.01); however, most patients were not bothered by it. There were no significant differences in the rate of biceps cramping or patient satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Although the postoperative Constant score and rate of biceps deformity favor LHB tenodesis statistically, the clinical significance appears negligible. SAGE Publications 2015-07 /pmc/articles/PMC4481674/ /pubmed/26137174 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1941738114539627 Text en © 2014 The Author(s)
spellingShingle Focus Topic: Upper Extremity
Leroux, Timothy
Chahal, Jaskarndip
Wasserstein, David
Verma, Nikhil N.
Romeo, Anthony A.
A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Comparing Clinical Outcomes After Concurrent Rotator Cuff Repair and Long Head Biceps Tenodesis or Tenotomy
title A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Comparing Clinical Outcomes After Concurrent Rotator Cuff Repair and Long Head Biceps Tenodesis or Tenotomy
title_full A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Comparing Clinical Outcomes After Concurrent Rotator Cuff Repair and Long Head Biceps Tenodesis or Tenotomy
title_fullStr A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Comparing Clinical Outcomes After Concurrent Rotator Cuff Repair and Long Head Biceps Tenodesis or Tenotomy
title_full_unstemmed A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Comparing Clinical Outcomes After Concurrent Rotator Cuff Repair and Long Head Biceps Tenodesis or Tenotomy
title_short A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Comparing Clinical Outcomes After Concurrent Rotator Cuff Repair and Long Head Biceps Tenodesis or Tenotomy
title_sort systematic review and meta-analysis comparing clinical outcomes after concurrent rotator cuff repair and long head biceps tenodesis or tenotomy
topic Focus Topic: Upper Extremity
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4481674/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26137174
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1941738114539627
work_keys_str_mv AT lerouxtimothy asystematicreviewandmetaanalysiscomparingclinicaloutcomesafterconcurrentrotatorcuffrepairandlongheadbicepstenodesisortenotomy
AT chahaljaskarndip asystematicreviewandmetaanalysiscomparingclinicaloutcomesafterconcurrentrotatorcuffrepairandlongheadbicepstenodesisortenotomy
AT wassersteindavid asystematicreviewandmetaanalysiscomparingclinicaloutcomesafterconcurrentrotatorcuffrepairandlongheadbicepstenodesisortenotomy
AT vermanikhiln asystematicreviewandmetaanalysiscomparingclinicaloutcomesafterconcurrentrotatorcuffrepairandlongheadbicepstenodesisortenotomy
AT romeoanthonya asystematicreviewandmetaanalysiscomparingclinicaloutcomesafterconcurrentrotatorcuffrepairandlongheadbicepstenodesisortenotomy
AT lerouxtimothy systematicreviewandmetaanalysiscomparingclinicaloutcomesafterconcurrentrotatorcuffrepairandlongheadbicepstenodesisortenotomy
AT chahaljaskarndip systematicreviewandmetaanalysiscomparingclinicaloutcomesafterconcurrentrotatorcuffrepairandlongheadbicepstenodesisortenotomy
AT wassersteindavid systematicreviewandmetaanalysiscomparingclinicaloutcomesafterconcurrentrotatorcuffrepairandlongheadbicepstenodesisortenotomy
AT vermanikhiln systematicreviewandmetaanalysiscomparingclinicaloutcomesafterconcurrentrotatorcuffrepairandlongheadbicepstenodesisortenotomy
AT romeoanthonya systematicreviewandmetaanalysiscomparingclinicaloutcomesafterconcurrentrotatorcuffrepairandlongheadbicepstenodesisortenotomy