SHOULDER & ELBOW
Arthroscopic Single-Row Versus Double-Row Rotator Cuff Repair: A Meta-analysis of the Randomized Clinical Trials
Este estudio ha sido identificado como potencialmente de alto impacto.
La métrica de alto impacto de OE, impulsada por la IA, estima la influencia que probablemente tendrá un artículo integrando señales tanto de la revista en la que se publica como del contenido científico del propio artículo.
Desarrollado mediante el procesamiento del lenguaje natural más avanzado, el modelo de Alto Impacto de OE predice con mayor precisión el futuro rendimiento de las citas de un estudio que el factor de impacto de la revista por sí solo.
Esto permite reconocer antes las investigaciones clínicamente significativas y ayuda a los lectores a centrarse en los artículos con más probabilidades de configurar la práctica futura.
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2013;1(3):57 Arthroscopy. 2013 Feb;29(2):343-8. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2012.11.019Five studies (author assessed Level of Evidence I) were included in this analysis which investigated the difference in clinical outcomes between single-row and double-row rotator cuff repair. A total of 349 patients were included in the 5 studies, and clinical outcomes were assessed through American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Constant Shoulder, and UCLA scores. The results at a minimum of 12 months indicated that there were no significant differences between the two techniques in any of the three outcome assessments.
Were the search methods used to find evidence (original research) on the primary question or questions stated?
Was the search for evidence reasonably comprehensive?
Were the criteria used for deciding which studies to include in the overview reported?
Was the bias in the selection of studies avoided?
Were the criteria used for assessing the validity of the included studies reported?
Was the validity of all of the studies referred to in the text assessed with use of appropriate criteria (either in selecting the studies for inclusion or in analyzing the studies that were cited)?
Were the methods used to combine the findings of the relevant studies (to reach a conclusion) reported?
Were the findings of the relevant studies combined appropriately relative to the primary question that the overview addresses?
Were the conclusions made by the author or authors supported by the data and or analysis reported in the overview?
How would you rate the scientific quality of this evidence?
Sí = 1
Incierto = 0,5
No relevante = 0
No = 0
La evaluación de los criterios de información evalúa la transparencia con la que los autores informan de las características metodológicas y del ensayo dentro de la publicación. La evaluación se divide en cinco categorías que se presentan a continuación.
4/4
Introduction
4/4
Accessing Data
3/4
Analysing Data
2/4
Results
3/4
Discussion
Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65
El Índice de Fragilidad es una herramienta que ayuda en la interpretación de hallazgos significativos, proporcionando una medida de fuerza para un resultado. El Índice de Fragilidad representa el número de eventos consecutivos que es necesario añadir a un resultado dicotómico para que el hallazgo deje de ser significativo. Un número pequeño representa un hallazgo más débil y un número grande un hallazgo más fuerte.
¿Por qué se necesitaba ahora este estudio?
Suture anchor configuration in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair has important implications in the overall success of the surgery. While the double-row anchor technique is reported to improve time-zero biomechanical strength, footprint contact pressure, and healing rate, it is also associated with longer operative time, increased cost, suppressed blood flow and is overall more technically difficult than the single-row suture anchor approach. The optimal suture anchor configuration remains debated; hence, this meta-analysis was designed to assess whether or not there were differences in clinical outcome between double-row and single-row rotator cuff repair.
¿Cuál era la pregunta principal de la investigación?
Which rotator cuff repair technique - double- or single-row - provided more favourable clinical outcomes?
¿Cuáles fueron los hallazgos importantes?
- Pooled results of 3 studies reporting ASES scores found no significant differences between groups in preoperative score (Single vs. double: 42.5 vs. 43.2, p=0.357), postoperative score (86.6 vs. 86.1, p=0.484), and preoperative-to-postoperative improvement (44.0 vs. 42.8, p=0.324).
- Analysis of 4 studies that reported Constant score observed that groups did not significantly differ in pre-op score (Single vs. double: 58.5 vs. 61.2, p=0.247) post-op score (87.3 vs. 87.0, p=0.490), and pre-to-postoperative improvement (28.9 vs. 25.8, p=0.255).
- Preoperative score, postoperative score, and pre-to-postoperative improvement in UCLA score (3 studies) was not significantly different between patients treated with single-row vs. double-row technique (Pre-op = 13.9 vs. 13.7, p=0.660; Post-op = 30.3 vs. 30.9, p=0.301; Pre-to-post = 16.4 vs 17.1, p=0.178).
¿Qué es lo que más debo recordar?
Neither the single-row nor the double-row technique was observed to provide patients with superior clinical outcome compared to the other when pooled results of ASES, Constant, and UCLA scores were analyzed.
¿Cómo afectará esto al cuidado de mis pacientes?
The results of the analysis suggest that similar clinical outcome can be attained by the use of either the single- or double-row rotator cuff repair. However, as this study only investigated clinical outcome, ongoing analysis of structural outcome is prudent. Additionally, an assessment of complication rates and a cost effectiveness analysis should be undertaken as well.
DESCARGO DE RESPONSABILIDAD
El contenido de esta página tiene únicamente fines informativos y no pretende sustituir el consejo, diagnóstico o tratamiento médico profesional. Si necesita tratamiento médico, busque siempre el consejo de su médico o acuda al servicio de urgencias más cercano. Las opiniones, creencias y puntos de vista expresados por las personas sobre el contenido que se encuentra en esta página no reflejan las opiniones, creencias y puntos de vista de OrthoEvidence.
0 de 4 artículos mensuales GRATIS desbloqueados
