Cargando…

Limited Biomechanical Evidence Behind Single Row Versus Double Row Repair of Subscapularis Tears: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature for studies investigating the biomechanical properties of constructs used to repair isolated subscapularis tears in time zero human cadaveric studies. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xiao, Michelle, Cohen, Samuel A., Cheung, Emilie V., Sherman, Seth L., Abrams, Geoffrey D., Freehill, Michael T.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9210385/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35747639
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2022.01.009
_version_ 1784730157697728512
author Xiao, Michelle
Cohen, Samuel A.
Cheung, Emilie V.
Sherman, Seth L.
Abrams, Geoffrey D.
Freehill, Michael T.
author_facet Xiao, Michelle
Cohen, Samuel A.
Cheung, Emilie V.
Sherman, Seth L.
Abrams, Geoffrey D.
Freehill, Michael T.
author_sort Xiao, Michelle
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature for studies investigating the biomechanical properties of constructs used to repair isolated subscapularis tears in time zero human cadaveric studies. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Three electronic databases were searched for studies that reported on the construct technique and biomechanical outcomes for the repair of isolated subscapularis tears in human cadaveric specimens. Ultimate load, gap formation, stiffness, and failure mode were documented. Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Appraisal for Cadaveric Studies (QUACS) scale. RESULTS: Six articles qualified (104 shoulders [72 single-row, 26 double-row, 6 transosseous]; mean QUACS score 10.5 ± 1) and were analyzed. Studies varied in the number and type of anchors and construct technique (1-2 anchors single-row; 3-4 anchors double-row; bioabsorbable or titanium anchors) and suture(s) used (no. 2 FiberWire or FiberTape), subscapularis tear type (25%, 33%, 50%, or 100% tear), and whether a knotless or knotted fixation was used. In studies that created full-thickness, upper subscapularis tears (Fox-Romeo II/III or Lafosse II), no significant differences were seen in ultimate load, gap formation, and stiffness for knotted versus knotless single-row repair (2 studies) and single-row versus double-row repair (1 study). Double-row repair of complete subscapularis tears demonstrated higher ultimate load, stiffness, and lower gap formation in 1 study. Ultimate load differed between the studies and constructs (single-row: range, 244 N to 678 N; double-row: range 332 N to 508 N, transosseous: 453 N). Suture cutout was the most common mode of failure (59%). CONCLUSION: Because of the limited number of studies and varying study designs in examining the biomechanical properties of repair constructs used for subscapularis tears, there is inconclusive evidence to determine which construct type is superior for repairing subscapularis tears. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results from biomechanical studies of clinically relevant subscapularis repair constructs are important to guide decision-making for choosing the optimal construct for patients with subscapularis tears.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9210385
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92103852022-06-22 Limited Biomechanical Evidence Behind Single Row Versus Double Row Repair of Subscapularis Tears: A Systematic Review Xiao, Michelle Cohen, Samuel A. Cheung, Emilie V. Sherman, Seth L. Abrams, Geoffrey D. Freehill, Michael T. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Systematic Review PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature for studies investigating the biomechanical properties of constructs used to repair isolated subscapularis tears in time zero human cadaveric studies. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Three electronic databases were searched for studies that reported on the construct technique and biomechanical outcomes for the repair of isolated subscapularis tears in human cadaveric specimens. Ultimate load, gap formation, stiffness, and failure mode were documented. Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Appraisal for Cadaveric Studies (QUACS) scale. RESULTS: Six articles qualified (104 shoulders [72 single-row, 26 double-row, 6 transosseous]; mean QUACS score 10.5 ± 1) and were analyzed. Studies varied in the number and type of anchors and construct technique (1-2 anchors single-row; 3-4 anchors double-row; bioabsorbable or titanium anchors) and suture(s) used (no. 2 FiberWire or FiberTape), subscapularis tear type (25%, 33%, 50%, or 100% tear), and whether a knotless or knotted fixation was used. In studies that created full-thickness, upper subscapularis tears (Fox-Romeo II/III or Lafosse II), no significant differences were seen in ultimate load, gap formation, and stiffness for knotted versus knotless single-row repair (2 studies) and single-row versus double-row repair (1 study). Double-row repair of complete subscapularis tears demonstrated higher ultimate load, stiffness, and lower gap formation in 1 study. Ultimate load differed between the studies and constructs (single-row: range, 244 N to 678 N; double-row: range 332 N to 508 N, transosseous: 453 N). Suture cutout was the most common mode of failure (59%). CONCLUSION: Because of the limited number of studies and varying study designs in examining the biomechanical properties of repair constructs used for subscapularis tears, there is inconclusive evidence to determine which construct type is superior for repairing subscapularis tears. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results from biomechanical studies of clinically relevant subscapularis repair constructs are important to guide decision-making for choosing the optimal construct for patients with subscapularis tears. Elsevier 2022-03-15 /pmc/articles/PMC9210385/ /pubmed/35747639 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2022.01.009 Text en © 2022 The Authors https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Systematic Review
Xiao, Michelle
Cohen, Samuel A.
Cheung, Emilie V.
Sherman, Seth L.
Abrams, Geoffrey D.
Freehill, Michael T.
Limited Biomechanical Evidence Behind Single Row Versus Double Row Repair of Subscapularis Tears: A Systematic Review
title Limited Biomechanical Evidence Behind Single Row Versus Double Row Repair of Subscapularis Tears: A Systematic Review
title_full Limited Biomechanical Evidence Behind Single Row Versus Double Row Repair of Subscapularis Tears: A Systematic Review
title_fullStr Limited Biomechanical Evidence Behind Single Row Versus Double Row Repair of Subscapularis Tears: A Systematic Review
title_full_unstemmed Limited Biomechanical Evidence Behind Single Row Versus Double Row Repair of Subscapularis Tears: A Systematic Review
title_short Limited Biomechanical Evidence Behind Single Row Versus Double Row Repair of Subscapularis Tears: A Systematic Review
title_sort limited biomechanical evidence behind single row versus double row repair of subscapularis tears: a systematic review
topic Systematic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9210385/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35747639
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2022.01.009
work_keys_str_mv AT xiaomichelle limitedbiomechanicalevidencebehindsinglerowversusdoublerowrepairofsubscapularistearsasystematicreview
AT cohensamuela limitedbiomechanicalevidencebehindsinglerowversusdoublerowrepairofsubscapularistearsasystematicreview
AT cheungemiliev limitedbiomechanicalevidencebehindsinglerowversusdoublerowrepairofsubscapularistearsasystematicreview
AT shermansethl limitedbiomechanicalevidencebehindsinglerowversusdoublerowrepairofsubscapularistearsasystematicreview
AT abramsgeoffreyd limitedbiomechanicalevidencebehindsinglerowversusdoublerowrepairofsubscapularistearsasystematicreview
AT freehillmichaelt limitedbiomechanicalevidencebehindsinglerowversusdoublerowrepairofsubscapularistearsasystematicreview