Clinical Outcomes of Pectoralis Major Tendon Repair with and without Platelet-Rich Plasma

胸大肌腱修复术中应用富血小板血浆与不应用富血小板血浆的临床疗效比较

阅读:1

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess clinical outcomes following pectoralis major tendon (PMT) repairs and to compare outcomes of PMT repairs augmented with and without leukocyte-poor platelet-rich plasma (LP-PRP). METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was performed of patients who underwent a PMT repair from May 2007 to June 2019 with a minimum of 2-year follow-up. Exclusion criteria included revision PMT repair, PMT reconstruction, and concomitant repair of another glenohumeral tendon/ligament. LP-PRP was injected surrounding the PMT repair before wound closure. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data were collected preoperatively and evaluated at final follow-up using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score (ASES), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation Score (SANE), Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score (QuickDASH), and Short Form 12 physical component summary (SF-12 PCS), patient satisfaction with outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-three men (mean age, 38.6 years; range, 20.5-64.3 years) were included in the final analysis. Mean time from injury to surgery was 30 days (range, 3-123 days). Follow-up was obtained for 16 of 23 patients (70%) at a mean of 5.1 years (range 2.0-13.0 years). Significant improvement in PROs was observed (ASES: 59.0 → 92.4, P = .008; SANE: 44.4 → 85.9, P = .018; QuickDASH: 44.4 → 8.5, P = .018; and SF-12 PCS: 42.5 → 52.6, P = .008). Median satisfaction was 9 of 10 (range, 6-10). Patients receiving LP-PRP had superior ASES (99.6 vs 83.0, P = .001), SANE (94.8 vs 74.6, P = .005), QuickDASH (0.24 vs 19.1, P = .001), and patient satisfaction (10 vs 9, P = .037) scores compared with those without PRP. PROs were unchanged based on chronicity, mechanism of injury, or tear location. One patient had revision surgery at 3.4 years due to adhesions. CONCLUSIONS: PMT repair produces improved PROs at final follow-up when compared with preoperative values. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.

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。