SHOULDER & ELBOW
Arthroscopic Single-Row Versus Double-Row Rotator Cuff Repair: A Meta-analysis of the Randomized Clinical Trials
この研究はハイインパクトの可能性があります。
OEのAI駆動型ハイインパクト指標は、論文が掲載されたジャーナルと論文自体の科学的内容の両方からのシグナルを統合することで、論文が持つ可能性の高い影響力を推定します。
最先端の自然言語処理を用いて開発されたOEハイインパクトモデルは、ジャーナルのインパクトファクターのみよりも、研究の将来の引用実績をより正確に予測します。
これにより、臨床的に意義のある研究をより早く認識することが可能になり、読者は将来の診療を形成する可能性が最も高い論文に集中することができます。
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?
はい = 1
不確実＝0.5
無関係 = 0
いいえ = 0
報告基準評価では、著者が出版物内で試験の方法論的特徴や試験特性を報告する際の透明性を評価します。評価は以下の5つのカテゴリーに分類されます。
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
Fragility Indexは、重要な所見の解釈を助けるツールで、結果の強さの尺度を提供します。Fragility Indexは、その所見が有意でなくなるために、二項対立の結果に追加する必要がある連続した事象の数を表します。数値が小さいほど弱い所見を表し、数値が大きいほど強い所見を表します。
なぜ今この研究が必要なのですか？
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.
主な研究課題は何ですか？
Which rotator cuff repair technique - double- or single-row - provided more favourable clinical outcomes?
重要な知見は？
- 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).
最も覚えておくべきことは？
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.
それが私の患者ケアにどのように影響するか？
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.
免責事項
このページに記載されている内容は、情報提供のみを目的としたものであり、専門的な医療アドバイス、診断、治療の代わりとなるものではありません。治療が必要な場合は、必ず医師の診断を仰ぐか、最寄りの救急外来を受診してください。このページに記載されている内容に関して個人が表明した意見、信念、見解は、OrthoEvidenceの意見、信念、見解を反映するものではありません。
0の4 月間無料記事のロック解除
