Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2022
Limited Biomechanical Evidence Behind Single Row Versus Double Row Repair of Subscapularis Tears: A Systematic Review.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Xiao Michelle, Cohen Samuel A, Cheung Emilie V, Sherman Seth L, Abrams Geoffrey D, Freehill Michael T
Аннотация
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.
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.