Cargando…

A comparison of simple and complex single-row versus transosseous-equivalent double-row repair techniques for full-thickness rotator cuff tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Rotator cuff injuries have traditionally been managed by either single-row or double-row arthroscopic repair techniques. Complex single-row techniques have recently been proposed as a biomechanically stronger alternative treatment option. However, no rigorous meta-analysis has evaluated...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ponugoti, Nikhil, Raghu, Aashish, Colaco, Henry B., Magill, Henry
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8811406/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35141679
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jseint.2021.09.007
_version_ 1784644428784205824
author Ponugoti, Nikhil
Raghu, Aashish
Colaco, Henry B.
Magill, Henry
author_facet Ponugoti, Nikhil
Raghu, Aashish
Colaco, Henry B.
Magill, Henry
author_sort Ponugoti, Nikhil
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Rotator cuff injuries have traditionally been managed by either single-row or double-row arthroscopic repair techniques. Complex single-row techniques have recently been proposed as a biomechanically stronger alternative treatment option. However, no rigorous meta-analysis has evaluated the effectiveness of complex single-row against double-row repair. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate clinical outcomes in patients with full-thickness rotator cuff injuries treated with both simple and complex single-row, as well as transosseous-equivalent (TOE) double-row procedures. METHODS: An up-to-date literature search was performed using the predefined search strategy. All studies that met the inclusion criteria were assessed for methodological quality and included in the meta-analysis. Pain, functional scores, range of motion, and retear rate were all considered in the study. CONCLUSION: The results of our meta-analysis suggest that there is no significant difference between complex single-row and TOE double-row procedures in any of the observed outcomes. At this point in time, the available comparative data between simple single-row and TOE double-row repair techniques are limited. Further high-quality studies are required to assess the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of these different techniques.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8811406
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88114062022-02-08 A comparison of simple and complex single-row versus transosseous-equivalent double-row repair techniques for full-thickness rotator cuff tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis Ponugoti, Nikhil Raghu, Aashish Colaco, Henry B. Magill, Henry JSES Int Shoulder BACKGROUND: Rotator cuff injuries have traditionally been managed by either single-row or double-row arthroscopic repair techniques. Complex single-row techniques have recently been proposed as a biomechanically stronger alternative treatment option. However, no rigorous meta-analysis has evaluated the effectiveness of complex single-row against double-row repair. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate clinical outcomes in patients with full-thickness rotator cuff injuries treated with both simple and complex single-row, as well as transosseous-equivalent (TOE) double-row procedures. METHODS: An up-to-date literature search was performed using the predefined search strategy. All studies that met the inclusion criteria were assessed for methodological quality and included in the meta-analysis. Pain, functional scores, range of motion, and retear rate were all considered in the study. CONCLUSION: The results of our meta-analysis suggest that there is no significant difference between complex single-row and TOE double-row procedures in any of the observed outcomes. At this point in time, the available comparative data between simple single-row and TOE double-row repair techniques are limited. Further high-quality studies are required to assess the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of these different techniques. Elsevier 2021-10-26 /pmc/articles/PMC8811406/ /pubmed/35141679 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jseint.2021.09.007 Text en Crown Copyright © 2021 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Shoulder
Ponugoti, Nikhil
Raghu, Aashish
Colaco, Henry B.
Magill, Henry
A comparison of simple and complex single-row versus transosseous-equivalent double-row repair techniques for full-thickness rotator cuff tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title A comparison of simple and complex single-row versus transosseous-equivalent double-row repair techniques for full-thickness rotator cuff tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full A comparison of simple and complex single-row versus transosseous-equivalent double-row repair techniques for full-thickness rotator cuff tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr A comparison of simple and complex single-row versus transosseous-equivalent double-row repair techniques for full-thickness rotator cuff tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of simple and complex single-row versus transosseous-equivalent double-row repair techniques for full-thickness rotator cuff tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short A comparison of simple and complex single-row versus transosseous-equivalent double-row repair techniques for full-thickness rotator cuff tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort comparison of simple and complex single-row versus transosseous-equivalent double-row repair techniques for full-thickness rotator cuff tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Shoulder
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8811406/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35141679
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jseint.2021.09.007
work_keys_str_mv AT ponugotinikhil acomparisonofsimpleandcomplexsinglerowversustransosseousequivalentdoublerowrepairtechniquesforfullthicknessrotatorcufftearsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT raghuaashish acomparisonofsimpleandcomplexsinglerowversustransosseousequivalentdoublerowrepairtechniquesforfullthicknessrotatorcufftearsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT colacohenryb acomparisonofsimpleandcomplexsinglerowversustransosseousequivalentdoublerowrepairtechniquesforfullthicknessrotatorcufftearsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT magillhenry acomparisonofsimpleandcomplexsinglerowversustransosseousequivalentdoublerowrepairtechniquesforfullthicknessrotatorcufftearsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT ponugotinikhil comparisonofsimpleandcomplexsinglerowversustransosseousequivalentdoublerowrepairtechniquesforfullthicknessrotatorcufftearsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT raghuaashish comparisonofsimpleandcomplexsinglerowversustransosseousequivalentdoublerowrepairtechniquesforfullthicknessrotatorcufftearsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT colacohenryb comparisonofsimpleandcomplexsinglerowversustransosseousequivalentdoublerowrepairtechniquesforfullthicknessrotatorcufftearsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT magillhenry comparisonofsimpleandcomplexsinglerowversustransosseousequivalentdoublerowrepairtechniquesforfullthicknessrotatorcufftearsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis