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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
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 |