Surgery for patellar tendinopathy (jumper's knee).
Journal
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
ISSN: 1469-493X
Titre abrégé: Cochrane Database Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100909747
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 09 2019
23 09 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
24
9
2019
medline:
18
10
2019
entrez:
24
9
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Patellar tendinopathy is an overuse condition that commonly affects athletes. Surgery is usually offered if medical and physical therapies fail to treat it effectively. There is variation in the type of surgery performed for the condition. To assess the benefits and harms of surgery for patellar tendinopathy in adults. We searched the following databases, to 17 July 2018: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Library, OVID MEDLINE, OVID Embase, clinical trial registries (www.ClinicalTrials.gov) and the WHO trials portal (www.who.int/ictrp/en/). We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared surgical techniques (open or arthroscopic) with non-operative treatment (including placebo surgery, exercise or other non-surgical modalities) in adults with patellar tendinopathy.Major outcomes assessed were knee pain, function, quality of life, participant global assessment of success, withdrawal rate, proportion with adverse events and proportion with tendon rupture. Two review authors selected studies for inclusion, extracted trial characteristics and outcome data, assessed the risk of bias and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE. Two trials (92 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Participants in both trials were followed for 12 months. Neither trial compared surgery to placebo surgery. One trial (40 randomised participants) compared open surgical excision with eccentric exercises, and the other compared arthroscopic surgery with sclerosing injections (52 randomised participants). Due to the nature of the interventions, neither the participants or the investigators were blinded to the group allocation, resulting in the potential for performance and detection bias. Some outcomes were selectively not recorded, leading to reporting bias. Overall, the certainty of the evidence from these studies was low for all outcomes due to the potential for bias, and imprecision due to small sample sizes.Compared with eccentric exercises, low-certainty evidence indicates that open surgical excision provides no clinically important benefits with respect to knee pain, function or global assessment of success. At 12 months, mean knee pain - measured by pain with standing jump on a 10-point scale (lower scores indicating less pain) - was 1.7 points (standard deviation (SD) 1.6) in the eccentric training group and 1.3 (SD 0.8) in the surgical group (one trial, 40 participants). This equates to an absolute pain reduction of 4% (ranging from 4% worse to 12% better, the minimal clinically important difference being 15%) and a relative reduction in pain of 10% better (ranging from 30% better to 10% worse) in the treatment group. At 12 months, function on the zero- to 100-point Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment (VISA) scale was 65.7 (SD 23.8) in the eccentric training group and 72.9 (SD 11.7) in the surgical group (one trial, 40 participants). This equates to an absolute change of 7% better function (ranging from 4% worse to 19% better) and relative change of 25% better (ranging from 15% worse to 65% better, the minimal clinically important difference being 13%). Participant global assessment of success was measured by the number of people with no pain at 12 months: 7/20 participants in the eccentric training group reported no pain, compared with 5/20 in the open surgical group (risk ratio (RR) 0.71 (95% CI 0.27 to 1.88); one trial, 40 participants). There were no withdrawals, but five out of 20 people from the eccentric exercise group crossed over to open surgical excision. Quality of life, adverse events and tendon ruptures were not measured.Compared with sclerosing injection, low-certainty evidence indicates that arthroscopic surgery may provide a reduction in pain and improvement in participant global assessment of success, however further studies are likely to change these results. At 12 months, mean pain with activities, measured on a 100-point scale (lower scores indicating less pain), was 41.1 (SD 28.5) in the sclerosing injection group and 12.8 (SD 19.3) in the arthroscopic surgery group (one trial, 52 participants). This equates to an absolute pain reduction of 28% better (ranging from 15% to 42% better, the minimal clinically important difference being 15%), and a relative change of 41% better (ranging from 21% to 61% better). At 12 months, the mean participant global assessment of success, measured by satisfaction on a 100-point scale (scale zero to 100, higher scores indicating greater satisfaction), was 52.9 (SD 32.6) in the sclerosing injection group and 86.8 (SD 20.8) in the arthroscopic surgery group (one trial, 52 participants). This equates to an absolute improvement of 34% (ranging from 19% to 49%). In both groups, one participant (4%) withdrew from the study. Functional outcome scores, including the VISA score, were not reported. Quality-of-life assessment, adverse events, and specifically the proportion with a tendon rupture, were not reported.We did not perform subgroup analysis to assess differences in outcome between arthroscopic or open surgical excision, as we did not identify more than one study with a common comparator. We are uncertain if surgery is beneficial over other therapeutic interventions, namely eccentric exercises or injectables. Low-certainty evidence shows that surgery for patellar tendinopathy may not provide clinically important benefits over eccentric exercise in terms of pain, function or participant-reported treatment success, but may provide clinically meaningful pain reduction and treatment success when compared with sclerosing injections. However, further research is likely to change these results. The evidence was downgraded two levels due to the small sample sizes and susceptibility to bias. We are uncertain if there are additional risks associated with surgery as study authors failed to report adverse events. Surgery seems to be embedded in clinical practice for late-stage patella tendinopathy, due to exhaustion of other therapeutic methods rather than evidence of benefit.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Patellar tendinopathy is an overuse condition that commonly affects athletes. Surgery is usually offered if medical and physical therapies fail to treat it effectively. There is variation in the type of surgery performed for the condition.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the benefits and harms of surgery for patellar tendinopathy in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases, to 17 July 2018: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Library, OVID MEDLINE, OVID Embase, clinical trial registries (www.ClinicalTrials.gov) and the WHO trials portal (www.who.int/ictrp/en/).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared surgical techniques (open or arthroscopic) with non-operative treatment (including placebo surgery, exercise or other non-surgical modalities) in adults with patellar tendinopathy.Major outcomes assessed were knee pain, function, quality of life, participant global assessment of success, withdrawal rate, proportion with adverse events and proportion with tendon rupture.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors selected studies for inclusion, extracted trial characteristics and outcome data, assessed the risk of bias and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
Two trials (92 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Participants in both trials were followed for 12 months. Neither trial compared surgery to placebo surgery. One trial (40 randomised participants) compared open surgical excision with eccentric exercises, and the other compared arthroscopic surgery with sclerosing injections (52 randomised participants). Due to the nature of the interventions, neither the participants or the investigators were blinded to the group allocation, resulting in the potential for performance and detection bias. Some outcomes were selectively not recorded, leading to reporting bias. Overall, the certainty of the evidence from these studies was low for all outcomes due to the potential for bias, and imprecision due to small sample sizes.Compared with eccentric exercises, low-certainty evidence indicates that open surgical excision provides no clinically important benefits with respect to knee pain, function or global assessment of success. At 12 months, mean knee pain - measured by pain with standing jump on a 10-point scale (lower scores indicating less pain) - was 1.7 points (standard deviation (SD) 1.6) in the eccentric training group and 1.3 (SD 0.8) in the surgical group (one trial, 40 participants). This equates to an absolute pain reduction of 4% (ranging from 4% worse to 12% better, the minimal clinically important difference being 15%) and a relative reduction in pain of 10% better (ranging from 30% better to 10% worse) in the treatment group. At 12 months, function on the zero- to 100-point Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment (VISA) scale was 65.7 (SD 23.8) in the eccentric training group and 72.9 (SD 11.7) in the surgical group (one trial, 40 participants). This equates to an absolute change of 7% better function (ranging from 4% worse to 19% better) and relative change of 25% better (ranging from 15% worse to 65% better, the minimal clinically important difference being 13%). Participant global assessment of success was measured by the number of people with no pain at 12 months: 7/20 participants in the eccentric training group reported no pain, compared with 5/20 in the open surgical group (risk ratio (RR) 0.71 (95% CI 0.27 to 1.88); one trial, 40 participants). There were no withdrawals, but five out of 20 people from the eccentric exercise group crossed over to open surgical excision. Quality of life, adverse events and tendon ruptures were not measured.Compared with sclerosing injection, low-certainty evidence indicates that arthroscopic surgery may provide a reduction in pain and improvement in participant global assessment of success, however further studies are likely to change these results. At 12 months, mean pain with activities, measured on a 100-point scale (lower scores indicating less pain), was 41.1 (SD 28.5) in the sclerosing injection group and 12.8 (SD 19.3) in the arthroscopic surgery group (one trial, 52 participants). This equates to an absolute pain reduction of 28% better (ranging from 15% to 42% better, the minimal clinically important difference being 15%), and a relative change of 41% better (ranging from 21% to 61% better). At 12 months, the mean participant global assessment of success, measured by satisfaction on a 100-point scale (scale zero to 100, higher scores indicating greater satisfaction), was 52.9 (SD 32.6) in the sclerosing injection group and 86.8 (SD 20.8) in the arthroscopic surgery group (one trial, 52 participants). This equates to an absolute improvement of 34% (ranging from 19% to 49%). In both groups, one participant (4%) withdrew from the study. Functional outcome scores, including the VISA score, were not reported. Quality-of-life assessment, adverse events, and specifically the proportion with a tendon rupture, were not reported.We did not perform subgroup analysis to assess differences in outcome between arthroscopic or open surgical excision, as we did not identify more than one study with a common comparator.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We are uncertain if surgery is beneficial over other therapeutic interventions, namely eccentric exercises or injectables. Low-certainty evidence shows that surgery for patellar tendinopathy may not provide clinically important benefits over eccentric exercise in terms of pain, function or participant-reported treatment success, but may provide clinically meaningful pain reduction and treatment success when compared with sclerosing injections. However, further research is likely to change these results. The evidence was downgraded two levels due to the small sample sizes and susceptibility to bias. We are uncertain if there are additional risks associated with surgery as study authors failed to report adverse events. Surgery seems to be embedded in clinical practice for late-stage patella tendinopathy, due to exhaustion of other therapeutic methods rather than evidence of benefit.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31546279
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013034.pub2
pmc: PMC6756823
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
CD013034Références
Acta Ortop Mex. 2007 Sep-Oct;21(5):234-8
pubmed: 18159910
Am J Sports Med. 2000 Mar-Apr;28(2):183-90
pubmed: 10750994
Br J Sports Med. 2014 Mar;48(6):453-7
pubmed: 23012320
Am J Sports Med. 2005 Apr;33(4):561-7
pubmed: 15722279
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Oct 3;10:ED000142
pubmed: 31643080
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015 Aug;23(8):2259-2268
pubmed: 24797812
Orthop Clin North Am. 1973 Jul;4(3):665-78
pubmed: 4783891
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 Aug;88(8):1689-98
pubmed: 16882889
Clin J Sport Med. 1999 Jul;9(3):129-37
pubmed: 10512340
Br J Sports Med. 1997 Dec;31(4):332-6
pubmed: 9429013
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012 Aug;20(8):1632-46
pubmed: 22186923
Clin Radiol. 1988 Mar;39(2):162-5
pubmed: 3281780
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011 Nov;63 Suppl 11:S240-52
pubmed: 22588748
J Sci Med Sport. 1998 Jan;1(1):22-8
pubmed: 9732118
Br J Sports Med. 2001 Oct;35(5):291-4
pubmed: 11579057
Acta Orthop Belg. 2016 Sep;82(3):610-326
pubmed: 29119904
Arthroscopy. 2015 Dec;31(12):2424-9.e3
pubmed: 26248496
Int Orthop. 1985;8(4):239-42
pubmed: 4018957
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013 Feb;21(2):351-7
pubmed: 22714975
Am J Sports Med. 2002 Sep-Oct;30(5):689-92
pubmed: 12239003
Sports Med. 1986 Jul-Aug;3(4):289-95
pubmed: 3738327
BMJ. 2002 Mar 16;324(7338):626-7
pubmed: 11895810
BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2535
pubmed: 19622551
Radiology. 1996 Sep;200(3):821-7
pubmed: 8756939
Sports Med. 2013 Apr;43(4):267-86
pubmed: 23494258
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007 Feb;455:102-6
pubmed: 17179784
Curr Sports Med Rep. 2011 Sep-Oct;10(5):255-70
pubmed: 23531972
Am J Sports Med. 1978 Nov-Dec;6(6):362-8
pubmed: 736196
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2016 Dec;24(12):e184-e192
pubmed: 27855131
Arthroscopy. 1999 Apr;15(3):341-5
pubmed: 10231119
Br J Sports Med. 2011 Apr;45(5):411-5
pubmed: 21393261
Arthroscopy. 2006 Apr;22(4):462.e1-5
pubmed: 16581464