Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2021
Nonanatomic and Suture-Based Coracoclavicular Joint Stabilization Techniques Provide Adequate Stability at a Lower Cost of Implants in Biomechanical Studies When Compared With Anatomic Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
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.
Marín Fermín Theodorakys, Hovsepian Jean Michel, Rodrigues Fernandes Víctor Miguel, Terzidis Ioannis, Papakostas Emmanouil, Koh Jason
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare the stability and cost of the used implants in nonanatomic and anatomic acromioclavicular joint repair/reconstruction (ACCR) techniques tested in cadaveric shoulder biomechanical studies during the last decade.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and prospectively registered in PROSPERO. Two independent reviewers searched PubMed, Embase, and Virtual Health Library databases. Studies evaluating 3-direction stability under 70-N loads and load-to-failure protocols with servohydraulic testing systems were included. A meta-analysis of the mean differences of anterior, posterior, and superior direction; relative stability value in 3 directions; superior direction load-to-failure; stability/cost index; and load-to-failure/cost index was performed using a continuous random-effects model and 95% confidence interval.
RESULTS: Eighteen articles were included. Both non-ACCR and ACCR techniques exceeded the minimum acceptable threshold of stability and load-to-failure. ACCR techniques were biomechanically better in terms of anterior stability (P = .04) and relative stability value (mean difference 64.08%, P = .015). However, supraphysiological stability and failure loads were achieved with non-ACCR techniques at a lower cost of implants. Techniques combining 2 clavicular tunnels separated by at least 10 mm, a mean of 2 sutures, and/or suture tapes had the greatest stability/cost index and load-to-failure/cost index among the included techniques (confidence interval 99%).
CONCLUSIONS: Non-ACCR and ACCR techniques exceeded the minimum acceptable threshold of stability and failure loads in controlled biomechanical testing. However, non-ACCR and techniques combining 2 clavicular tunnels separated by at least 10 mm, a mean of 2 sutures, and/or suture tapes provide supraphysiologic stability and failure loads at a lower cost of implants.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Non-ACCR and suture-based techniques may provide more cost-effective and greater value treatment for acromioclavicular joint injury and could be considered in the surgical management of normal activity individuals and cost-sensitive populations.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and prospectively registered in PROSPERO. Two independent reviewers searched PubMed, Embase, and Virtual Health Library databases. Studies evaluating 3-direction stability under 70-N loads and load-to-failure protocols with servohydraulic testing systems were included. A meta-analysis of the mean differences of anterior, posterior, and superior direction; relative stability value in 3 directions; superior direction load-to-failure; stability/cost index; and load-to-failure/cost index was performed using a continuous random-effects model and 95% confidence interval.
RESULTS: Eighteen articles were included. Both non-ACCR and ACCR techniques exceeded the minimum acceptable threshold of stability and load-to-failure. ACCR techniques were biomechanically better in terms of anterior stability (P = .04) and relative stability value (mean difference 64.08%, P = .015). However, supraphysiological stability and failure loads were achieved with non-ACCR techniques at a lower cost of implants. Techniques combining 2 clavicular tunnels separated by at least 10 mm, a mean of 2 sutures, and/or suture tapes had the greatest stability/cost index and load-to-failure/cost index among the included techniques (confidence interval 99%).
CONCLUSIONS: Non-ACCR and ACCR techniques exceeded the minimum acceptable threshold of stability and failure loads in controlled biomechanical testing. However, non-ACCR and techniques combining 2 clavicular tunnels separated by at least 10 mm, a mean of 2 sutures, and/or suture tapes provide supraphysiologic stability and failure loads at a lower cost of implants.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Non-ACCR and suture-based techniques may provide more cost-effective and greater value treatment for acromioclavicular joint injury and could be considered in the surgical management of normal activity individuals and cost-sensitive populations.