SHOULDER & ELBOW
Outcomes of single-row versus double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a systematic review and meta-analysis of current evidence
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(17):10 Arthroscopy. 2013 Aug;29(8):1437-496 randomized control trials, 4 prospective cohort studies and 2 retrospective cohort studies comparing functional and clinical effects of single- and double-row repairs of a torn rotator cuff were selected for inclusion in this meta-analysis and systematic review. The findings stated improved function, decreased pain and increased odds of healing in favour of double-row repairs; however the results were not clinically significant. Also, there were greater improvements found in tears greater than 3cm long with the double-row repair.
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
3/4
Accessing Data
4/4
Analysing Data
4/4
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？
Rotator cuff tears have a prevalence rate of 17% in the global population, yet an optimal arthroscopic treatment remains undecided. Single-row repairs are used most commonly; however, the reoccurrence rates can vary greatly and this technique may provide the opportunity for incomplete structural integrity. Some surgeons prefer the double-row technique presuming that a larger contact area between the tendon and the bone allow more fibers to participate in healing, resulting in superior biomechanical function. The reoccurrence rate after double-row procedures varies greatly and the clinical benefits are unclear. This meta-analysis was undertaken to compare the double-row and single-row techniques in the treatment of rotator cuff tears.
主な研究課題は何ですか？
Which technique, single-row or double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, yielded improved clinical outcomes and healing in patients with rotator cuff tears?
重要な知見は？
- 12 studies were identified and the outcomes were pooled.
- An analysis of the trials with the highest level of evidence indicated no significant difference in CS scores (MD = 0.042, 95% CI, -0.15 to 0.23; P = 0.664, 5 studies) or ASES scores (MD = 0.12, 95% CI, -0.09 to 0.33; P = 0.26, 4 studies). The heterogeneity was not significant.
- 5 studies suggest the double row repair resulted in increased UCLA shoulder rating scores (p = 0.006), although this finding is statistically significant the authors state it is not clinically significant.
- The RCT's also indicated a significant improved in overall odds ratio of healing (OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.17 to 3.18; P =0.01, 5 studies) in favour of the double-row repair.
- When examining studies of every level of evidence, similar results were found; no differences were found in CS score (MD = 0.05, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.20; P = 0.566)) or ASES score (MD = 0.13, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.29; P = 0.102) yet, the UCLA score and healing rate were both in favour of the double-row repair [(MD = 0.21, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.38; P = 0.02) and (OR = 1.87, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.68; P = 0.001) respectively].
- A subgroup analysis of tears less than 3cm long demonstrated no difference in Constant score (p= .951), ASES score (p= 0.654), UCLA score (p=0.316), or intact tendon healing (p=0.32).
- Tears greater than 3 cm long however, showed significant benefit from the double-row repair in the ASES test (MD = 0.70, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.10; P = 0.001), the UCLA test (MD = 0.65, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.12; P = 0.007), however the differences were not clinically significant. This subgroup analysis also identified a significant difference in intact tendon healing (OR = 3.44, 95% CI 1.09 to 10.88; P = 0.035).
最も覚えておくべきことは？
There were statistically significant advantages found in the clinical and functional outcomes of the double-row repair, such as improvements in the University of California, Los Angeles shoulder rating scale and overall odds ratio for tending healing, however, these findings were not clinically significant. Also, tears that were greater than 3cm long showed improvements in both these tests as well as in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score.
それが私の患者ケアにどのように影響するか？
This study suggests that the double-row repair may provide favourable results compared to the single-row repair, however, these differences do not appear to be clinically significant. The results from the meta-analysis indicate the need for further research to be undertaken examining the treatment of different sized tears or tear locations. Also note that not all of statistically significant findings are clinically significant.
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
