Journal of shoulder and elbow surgery · 2014
Clinical and structural outcomes after arthroscopic single-row versus double-row rotator cuff repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of level I randomized clinical trials.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАСистематический обзорНазвание 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.
Millett Peter J, Warth Ryan J, Dornan Grant J, Lee Jared T, Spiegl Ulrich J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all available level I randomized controlled trials comparing single-row with double-row repair to statistically compare clinical outcomes and imaging-diagnosed re-tear rates.
METHODS: A literature search was undertaken to identify all level I randomized controlled trials comparing structural or clinical outcomes after single-row versus double-row rotator cuff repair. Clinical outcomes measures included in the meta-analysis were the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, University of California-Los Angeles, and Constant scores; structural outcomes included imaging-confirmed re-tears. Meta-analyses compared raw mean differences in outcomes measures and relative risk ratios for imaging-diagnosed re-tears after single-row or double-row repairs by a random-effects model.
RESULTS: The literature search identified a total of 7 studies that were included in the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in preoperative to postoperative change in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, University of California-Los Angeles, or Constant scores between the single-row and double-row groups (P = .440, .116, and .156, respectively). The overall re-tear rate was 25.9% (68/263) in the single-row group and 14.2% (37/261) in the double-row group. There was a statistically significant increased risk of sustaining an imaging-proven re-tear of any type in the single-row group (relative risk, 1.76 [95% confidence interval, 1.25-2.48]; P = .001), with partial-thickness re-tears accounting for the majority of this difference (relative risk, 1.99 [95% confidence interval, 1.40-3.82]; P = .039).
CONCLUSION: Single-row repairs resulted in significantly higher re-tear rates compared with double-row repairs, especially with regard to partial-thickness re-tears. However, there were no detectable differences in improvement in outcomes scores between single-row and double-row repairs.
METHODS: A literature search was undertaken to identify all level I randomized controlled trials comparing structural or clinical outcomes after single-row versus double-row rotator cuff repair. Clinical outcomes measures included in the meta-analysis were the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, University of California-Los Angeles, and Constant scores; structural outcomes included imaging-confirmed re-tears. Meta-analyses compared raw mean differences in outcomes measures and relative risk ratios for imaging-diagnosed re-tears after single-row or double-row repairs by a random-effects model.
RESULTS: The literature search identified a total of 7 studies that were included in the meta-analysis. There were no significant differences in preoperative to postoperative change in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, University of California-Los Angeles, or Constant scores between the single-row and double-row groups (P = .440, .116, and .156, respectively). The overall re-tear rate was 25.9% (68/263) in the single-row group and 14.2% (37/261) in the double-row group. There was a statistically significant increased risk of sustaining an imaging-proven re-tear of any type in the single-row group (relative risk, 1.76 [95% confidence interval, 1.25-2.48]; P = .001), with partial-thickness re-tears accounting for the majority of this difference (relative risk, 1.99 [95% confidence interval, 1.40-3.82]; P = .039).
CONCLUSION: Single-row repairs resulted in significantly higher re-tear rates compared with double-row repairs, especially with regard to partial-thickness re-tears. However, there were no detectable differences in improvement in outcomes scores between single-row and double-row repairs.