Footprint preparation with nanofractures in a supraspinatus repair cuts in half the retear rate at 1-year follow-up. A randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE: To evaluate if adding nanofractures to the footprint of a supraspinatus tear repair would have any effect in the outcomes at one-year follow-up. METHODS: Multicentric, triple-blinded, randomized trial with 12-months follow-up. Subjects with isolated symptomatic reparable supraspinatus tears...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ruiz Ibán, Miguel Angel, Sanchez Alepuz, Eduardo, Diaz Heredia, Jorge, Hachem, Abdul-ilah, Ezagüi Bentolila, Leon, Calvo, Angel, Verdú, Carlos, de Rus Aznar, Ignacio, Soler Romagosa, Francesc
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020
Materias:
Shoulder
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8225541/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32488368
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-06073-7
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: To evaluate if adding nanofractures to the footprint of a supraspinatus tear repair would have any effect in the outcomes at one-year follow-up. METHODS: Multicentric, triple-blinded, randomized trial with 12-months follow-up. Subjects with isolated symptomatic reparable supraspinatus tears smaller than 3 cm and without grade 4 fatty infiltration were included. These were randomized to two groups: In the Control group an arthroscopic supraspinatus repair was performed; in the Nanofracture group the footprint was additionally prepared with nanofractures (1 mm wide, 9 mm deep microfractures). Clinical evaluation was done with Constant score, EQ-5D-3L, and Brief Pain Inventory. The primary outcome was the retear rate in MRI at 12-months follow-up. Secondary outcomes were: characteristics of the retear (at the footprint or at the musculotendinous junction) and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Seventy-one subjects were randomized. Two were lost to follow-up, leaving 69 participants available for assessment at 12-months follow-up (33 in the Control group and 36 in the Nanofracture Group). The Nanofracture group had lower retear rates than the Control group (7/36 [19.4%] vs 14/33 [42.4%], differences significant, p = 0.038). Retear rates at the musculotendinous junction were similar but the Nanofracture group had better tendon healing rates to the bone (34/36 [94.4%] vs. 24/33 [66.71%], p = 0.014). Clinically both groups had significant improvements, but no differences were found between groups. CONCLUSION: Adding nanofractures at the footprint during an isolated supraspinatus repair lowers in half the retear rate at 12-months follow-up. This is due to improved healing at the footprint. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00167-020-06073-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Ejemplares similares