The American journal of sports medicine · 2024
Similar Healing Rates of Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair With and Without Bone Marrow Stimulation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Thamrongskulsiri Napatpong, Limskul Danaithep, Itthipanichpong Thun, Tanpowpong Thanathep, Kuptniratsaikul Somsak
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Bone marrow stimulation (BMS) techniques such as microfracture, nanofracture, and the crimson duvet procedure expose the bone marrow of the proximal humerus to the rotator cuff tendon footprint. The effect of performing BMS on tendon healing is a subject of interest.
PURPOSE: To compare studies on arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with BMS versus without BMS for rotator cuff tears according to healing rates and clinical and radiological outcomes.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 2.
METHODS: The 2020 PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed in conducting a search. Studies that compared arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with and without BMS were included if they provided postoperative patient-reported outcomes and healing rates. Dichotomous outcomes were expressed as mean differences (MDs), while continuous outcomes were expressed as odds ratio.
RESULTS: Included were 5 studies (N = 499 shoulders); 4 studies had level 1 evidence, and 1 study had level 2 evidence. The healing rate of rotator cuff repair was similar between the 2 groups (ie, with and without BMS) (odds ratio, 1.58 [95% CI, 0.63 to 4.00]; P = .33). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in the postoperative Constant score (MD, 1.41 [95% CI, -0.58 to 3.39]; P = .16), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (MD, 0.77 [95% CI, -1.43 to 2.96]; P = .49), or range of motion for forward flexion (MD, 2.45 [95% CI, -0.66 to 5.57]; P = .12) and external rotation (MD, 0.81 [95% CI, -2.35 to 3.97]; P = .62) at the final follow-up between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSION: The healing rate of rotator cuff repair was similar, regardless of whether BMS was performed or not. Additionally, there was no significant difference in postoperative patient-reported outcome scores, range of motion, and complications.
REGISTRATION: CRD42023388427 (PROSPERO).
PURPOSE: To compare studies on arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with BMS versus without BMS for rotator cuff tears according to healing rates and clinical and radiological outcomes.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 2.
METHODS: The 2020 PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed in conducting a search. Studies that compared arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with and without BMS were included if they provided postoperative patient-reported outcomes and healing rates. Dichotomous outcomes were expressed as mean differences (MDs), while continuous outcomes were expressed as odds ratio.
RESULTS: Included were 5 studies (N = 499 shoulders); 4 studies had level 1 evidence, and 1 study had level 2 evidence. The healing rate of rotator cuff repair was similar between the 2 groups (ie, with and without BMS) (odds ratio, 1.58 [95% CI, 0.63 to 4.00]; P = .33). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in the postoperative Constant score (MD, 1.41 [95% CI, -0.58 to 3.39]; P = .16), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (MD, 0.77 [95% CI, -1.43 to 2.96]; P = .49), or range of motion for forward flexion (MD, 2.45 [95% CI, -0.66 to 5.57]; P = .12) and external rotation (MD, 0.81 [95% CI, -2.35 to 3.97]; P = .62) at the final follow-up between the 2 groups.
CONCLUSION: The healing rate of rotator cuff repair was similar, regardless of whether BMS was performed or not. Additionally, there was no significant difference in postoperative patient-reported outcome scores, range of motion, and complications.
REGISTRATION: CRD42023388427 (PROSPERO).