ACE Report Cover
Tenodesis has higher functional outcome; tenotomy has shorter OR times in LHBT treatment
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
言語
Download Download Download
ダウンロード
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
引用
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ お気に入り
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
言語
Download Download Download
ダウンロード
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
引用
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ お気に入り

SHOULDER & ELBOW

Tenotomy or tenodesis for the long head of biceps lesions in shoulders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report

OE Journal. 2015;3(24):27 PLoS One. 2015 Mar 18;10(3):e0121286

Seven studies (3 randomized controlled trials; 4 cohort studies) were included in this meta-analysis comparing tenodesis and tenotomy in the management of patients with lesions of the long head of the biceps tendon. Meta-analysis was performed on Constant score, complications, satisfaction, and operative time. Qualitative assessment was undertaken for postoperative range of motion. Tenodesis demonstrated higher postoperative Constant scores and lower rates of cramp pain and Popeye deformity, while no significant differences were observed in satisfaction or range of motion. Operative time was significantly shorter for tenotomy.


出版資金提供の詳細 +
資金提供:
Non-funded
コンフリクト:
None disclosed

バイアスのリスク

10/10

報告基準

19/20

脆弱性指数

N/A

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

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?

Long head of the biceps tendon lesions are common, particularly as individuals age. Surgery is indicated if conservative treatment can not manage symptoms. Tenotomy or tenodesis may be performed and are typically successful, though both are associated with their own advantages and disadvantages. As such, surgeons are split between which should be performed, and whether one option is superior to the other.

主な研究課題は何ですか?

Is there a significant difference in clinical or functional outcome between tenotomy and tenodesis in patients with long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) lesions?

研究の特徴 +
データソース:
PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched for relevant articles published up to August 2014. Reference lists of identified articles were also search for studies possibly missed by the electronic search.
索引用語:
Search terms included: "long head of biceps", "biceps tenotomy", and "biceps tenodesis".
研究の選択:
Inclusion criteria were: randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing tenotomy and tenodesis in patients with LHBT lesion, and reported minimum 1 year follow-up of patient outcomes. Search and selection were performed independently by two reviewers. A total of seven studies (3 RCTs, 4 cohort) with 622 patients were selection for final inclusion.
データ抽出:
Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers, with disagreement resolved through discussion and, if necessary, consultation with a third reviewer.
データ統合:
Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager software (RevMan 5.2). Effect sizes were expressed as risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, both with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Chi-square test and I-squared statistic, with I>50% considered significant heterogeneity. If heterogeneity was significant, a random-effects model was used. If heterogeneity was non-significant, a fixed-effects model was used.

重要な知見は?

  • Constant scores were significantly higher with tenodesis versus tenotomy (5 studies; MD 2.84 [95%CI 0.37, 5.31]; p=0.02).
  • Qualitative assessment of range of motion from three studies was undertaken, with all reporting no significant difference between tenodesis and tenotomy groups.
  • Tenodesis demonstrated significantly lower rates of cramp pain (4 studies; RR 0.51 [95%CI 0.26, 0.98]; p=0.04) and Popeye deformity (7 studies; RR 0.18 [ 95%CI 0.11, 0.30]; p<0.00001). Rate of satisfaction was similar between groups (4 studies; RR 1.00 [095%CI 0.92, 1.09]; p=0.94).
  • Tenotomy demonstrated a significantly shorter operative time compared to tenodesis (3 studies; MD 10.54 [95%CI 8.96, 12.12]; p<0.00001).
最も覚えておくべきことは?

Tenodesis demonstrated significantly higher postoperative Constant score and lower incidences of cramp pain and Popeye deformity compared to tenotomy in patients with long head of the biceps tendon lesions. Tenotomy took significantly less time to complete compared to tenodesis. Range of motion postoperative did not appear to significantly differ between tenodesis and tenotomy, and patients were generally satisfied with either surgical treatment.

それが私の患者ケアにどのように影響するか?

The results of this meta-analysis suggest that despite having increased surgical time, tenodesis may have improved functional outcomes after surgery for lesions of the long head of the biceps tendon, and may also reduce the risk of associated painful cramping and Popeye deformity. Additional, randomized controlled trials should be considerd to further add to the body of evidence comparing these two methods of treatment.

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
今月の無料記事閲覧数が4件に達しました。

週1.99ドルからOrthoEvidenceにアクセスできます。

最新のエビデンスにアクセスしてください。いつでもキャンセルできます。
  • 整形外科における最新のインパクトのあるランダム化比較試験とシステマティックレビューの批判的評価
  • Journal of Bone and Joint Surgeryとのコラボレーション、国際的に著名な外科医へのインタビュー、整形外科ニュースやトピックに関する座談会など、OrthoEvidenceポッドキャストコンテンツへのアクセス
  • 週2回発行されるエビデンスに基づくニュースレター、The Pulseの購読。
Upgrade
Close Dialog
おかえりなさい
パスワードをお忘れですか?
今すぐ無料トライアルを開始

あなたのアカウントは
OrthoEvidenceへの無料アクセスが含まれます。


または
パスワードをお忘れですか?

または
Eメールをご確認ください

入力されたメールアドレスにアカウントが存在する場合、パスワードリセットのメールが送信されます。メールが届かない場合は、迷惑メールフォルダをご確認ください。

その他のサポート サポートチームまでご連絡ください。.

この機能を有効にするにはログインしてください

この機能にアクセスするには、有効なOrthoEvidenceアカウントにログインする必要があります。ログインするか、無料トライアルアカウントを作成してください。

ACEレポートを翻訳

OrthoEvidenceは、多言語でコンテンツにアクセスできるようにするため、第三者の翻訳サービスを利用しています。正確性を確保するためにあらゆる努力をしていますが、翻訳が必ずしも完璧ではない可能性があることにご注意ください。

引用方法 ACE Report

OrthoEvidence. Tenodesis has higher functional outcome; tenotomy has shorter OR times in LHBT treatment. OE Journal. 2015;3(24):27. Available from: https://myorthoevidence.com/AceReport/Show/tenodesis-has-higher-functional-outcome-tenotomy-has-shorter-or-times-in-lhbt-treatment

引用のコピー
この機能を有効にするにはログインしてください

この機能にアクセスするには、有効なOrthoEvidenceアカウントにログインする必要があります。ログインするか、無料トライアルアカウントを作成してください。

プレミアム会員機能

この機能にアクセスするには、OrthoEvidenceのプレミアムアカウントにログインする必要があります。

共有 ACE Report