Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association · 2024
Comparable Pain Levels and Functional Outcomes With and Without the Use of Dermal Allograft Augmentation in Endoscopic Gluteus Medius Repair.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Nadeau Nicolas J, Marder Ryan S, Fasulo Sydney M, Richards Sean M, Kraeutler Matthew J, Scillia Anthony J
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare retrospectively the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing endoscopic gluteal tendon repair with and without the use of dermal allograft augmentation.
METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data, single-surgeon cohort study was performed on all patients undergoing endoscopic gluteus medius repair (GMR) and GMR with augmentation (GMR-A) between April 2017 and April 2022. Dermal allograft augmentation was used in cases where intraoperative gluteus tissue quality was poor. An electronic survey of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) was completed at a minimum of 1 year postoperatively. PROMs included a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain; the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Activity Scale; the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS); the Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS); and the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE). The proportion of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) for each PROM were compared between groups.
RESULTS: Sixty-four patients were reached for follow-up (26 GMR, 38 GMR-A). No differences were found between the groups in terms of demographics. There was a significantly longer time to follow-up in the GMR group (39.4 ± 26.9 vs 24.2 ± 11.7 months, P = .003). There were no differences between the GMR and GMR-A groups in terms of postoperative PROMs including VAS (3.3 ± 2.6 vs 3.3 ± 2.8, P = .99), UCLA (5.8 ± 2.1 vs 5.1 ± 2.0, P = .17), mHHS (70.1 ± 18.1 vs 68.9 ± 17.8, P = .80), HOS-SSS (67.7 ± 28.9 vs 62.5 ± 30.2, P = .50), and SANE (71.7 ± 27.9 vs 71.3 ± 22.8, P = .95). A significantly greater proportion of patients in the GMR group achieved a PASS for UCLA (64% vs 34%, P = .02). One patient each in the GMR (3.8%) and GMR-A (2.6%) groups underwent revision gluteus medius repair with dermal allograft augmentation at the final follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates comparable clinical outcomes with and without the use of dermal allograft augmentation in endoscopic gluteus medius repairs.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative series.
METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data, single-surgeon cohort study was performed on all patients undergoing endoscopic gluteus medius repair (GMR) and GMR with augmentation (GMR-A) between April 2017 and April 2022. Dermal allograft augmentation was used in cases where intraoperative gluteus tissue quality was poor. An electronic survey of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) was completed at a minimum of 1 year postoperatively. PROMs included a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain; the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Activity Scale; the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS); the Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS); and the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE). The proportion of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) for each PROM were compared between groups.
RESULTS: Sixty-four patients were reached for follow-up (26 GMR, 38 GMR-A). No differences were found between the groups in terms of demographics. There was a significantly longer time to follow-up in the GMR group (39.4 ± 26.9 vs 24.2 ± 11.7 months, P = .003). There were no differences between the GMR and GMR-A groups in terms of postoperative PROMs including VAS (3.3 ± 2.6 vs 3.3 ± 2.8, P = .99), UCLA (5.8 ± 2.1 vs 5.1 ± 2.0, P = .17), mHHS (70.1 ± 18.1 vs 68.9 ± 17.8, P = .80), HOS-SSS (67.7 ± 28.9 vs 62.5 ± 30.2, P = .50), and SANE (71.7 ± 27.9 vs 71.3 ± 22.8, P = .95). A significantly greater proportion of patients in the GMR group achieved a PASS for UCLA (64% vs 34%, P = .02). One patient each in the GMR (3.8%) and GMR-A (2.6%) groups underwent revision gluteus medius repair with dermal allograft augmentation at the final follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates comparable clinical outcomes with and without the use of dermal allograft augmentation in endoscopic gluteus medius repairs.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative series.