Repair Integrity and Functional Outcomes Between Knot-Tying and Knotless Suture-Bridge Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial

结扎式与无结缝合桥式关节镜下肩袖修复术的修复完整性和功能结果:一项前瞻性随机临床试验

阅读:1

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Knot-tying suture-bridge (SB) rotator cuff repair may compromise the vascularity of the repaired tendon, causing tendon strangulation and medial repair failure. The knotless SB repair technique has been proposed to overcome this possibility and decrease retear rates. PURPOSE: To compare clinical and structural outcomes and retear patterns between the knot-tying and knotless SB techniques. We hypothesized that the knotless technique would result in lower retear rates owing to the preservation of intratendinous vascularity. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: A total of 104 patients with full-thickness rotator cuff tears were randomly and prospectively allocated to undergo knot-tying (group 1) or knotless (group 2) SB repair. Clinical outcome measures included range of motion, the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and the Constant score for function. Repair integrity was evaluated on magnetic resonance imaging scans using the Sugaya classification. Retears were also classified according to their pattern as type 1 (lateral) or type 2 (medial). RESULTS: Overall, 88 patients (group 1: n = 42 [mean ± SD age, 54.3 ± 9.8 years]; group 2: n = 46 [mean ± SD age, 55.8 ± 8.2 years]) were included in the final analysis. The mean ± SD follow-up period was 25.4 ± 8.3 and 23.3 ± 7.2 months for groups 1 and 2, respectively. From preoperatively to postoperatively, the mean VAS pain score improved significantly in both groups (group 1: from 7.4 ± 1.7 to 1.0 ± 1.7; group 2: from 7.1 ± 1.9 to 1.3 ± 2.0; P < .0001 for both), as did the mean ± SD Constant score (group 1: from 51.7 ± 13.4 to 86.0 ± 11.5; group 2: from 49.4 ± 18.4 to 87.2 ± 14.8; P < .0001 for both). There was no significant difference between the groups for the postoperative VAS or Constant score. The retear rate was not significantly different between the groups (19.0% [8/42] in group 1 and 28.3% [13/46] in group 2; P > .05). There was a significant difference in the type 2 failure rate (75.0% [6/8] in group 1 and 23.1% [3/13] in group 2; P = .03). CONCLUSION: Both techniques showed excellent improvement and comparable clinical outcomes, and there was no significant difference in retear rates. Consistent with previously published data, the type 2 failure rate was significantly higher with the knot-tying technique. REGISTRATION: NCT03982108 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。