Sliding or Nonsliding Arthroscopic Knots for Shoulder Surgery: A Systematic Review.
arthroscopic surgery
nonsliding knot
rotator cuff
shoulder
sliding knot
suture technique
Journal
Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine
ISSN: 2325-9671
Titre abrégé: Orthop J Sports Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101620522
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2020
Apr 2020
Historique:
entrez:
20
5
2020
pubmed:
20
5
2020
medline:
20
5
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Knot tying is a crucial component of successful arthroscopic shoulder surgery. It is currently unknown whether sliding or nonsliding techniques result in superior clinical outcomes. To assess the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic sliding knot (SK)- versus nonsliding knot (NSK)-tying techniques during arthroscopic shoulder surgery, including rotator cuff repair, Bankart repair, and superior labral anterior-posterior (SLAP) repair. Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. A systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. All English-language literature published between 2000 and 2018 reporting clinical outcomes utilizing SK- or NSK-tying techniques during rotator cuff repair, Bankart repair, and SLAP repair with a minimum 24-month follow-up was reviewed by 2 independent reviewers. Information on type of surgery, knot used, failure rate, patient satisfaction, and patient-reported outcomes was collected. Patient-reported outcome measures included the Constant-Murley score, Rowe score, and visual analog scale for pain. Study quality was evaluated using the modified Coleman Methodology Score. Overall, 9 studies (6 level 3 and 3 level 4) with a total of 671 patients (mean age, 52.8 years [range, 16-86 years]; 65.7% male; 206 SK and 465 NSK) were included. There were 4 studies that reported on Bankart repair in 148 patients (63 SK and 85 NSK), 3 on SLAP repair in 59 patients (59 SK), and 2 on rotator cuff repair in 464 patients (84 SK and 380 NSK). Also, 6 studies compared knot-tying with knotless techniques (3 Bankart repair studies and 3 SLAP repair studies), while the studies reporting the outcomes of SLAP repair evaluated SK-tying techniques only. The failure rate for Bankart repair was 3.2% (2/63) for SKs and 4.7% (4/85) for NSKs. The failure rate for rotator cuff repair was 2.4% (2/84) for SKs and 6.3% (24/380) for NSKs. The failure rate for SLAP repair was 11.9% (7/59). Because of inconsistencies in outcomes and procedures, no quantitative analysis was possible. The mean modified Coleman Methodology Score for all studies was 65.1 ± 8.77, indicating adequate methodology. The literature on clinical outcomes using SKs or NSKs for shoulder procedures is limited to level 4 evidence. Future studies should be prospective and focus on comparing the use of SKs and NSKs for shoulder procedures to elucidate which arthroscopic knot results in superior clinical outcomes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Knot tying is a crucial component of successful arthroscopic shoulder surgery. It is currently unknown whether sliding or nonsliding techniques result in superior clinical outcomes.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
To assess the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic sliding knot (SK)- versus nonsliding knot (NSK)-tying techniques during arthroscopic shoulder surgery, including rotator cuff repair, Bankart repair, and superior labral anterior-posterior (SLAP) repair.
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.
METHODS
METHODS
A systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. All English-language literature published between 2000 and 2018 reporting clinical outcomes utilizing SK- or NSK-tying techniques during rotator cuff repair, Bankart repair, and SLAP repair with a minimum 24-month follow-up was reviewed by 2 independent reviewers. Information on type of surgery, knot used, failure rate, patient satisfaction, and patient-reported outcomes was collected. Patient-reported outcome measures included the Constant-Murley score, Rowe score, and visual analog scale for pain. Study quality was evaluated using the modified Coleman Methodology Score.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Overall, 9 studies (6 level 3 and 3 level 4) with a total of 671 patients (mean age, 52.8 years [range, 16-86 years]; 65.7% male; 206 SK and 465 NSK) were included. There were 4 studies that reported on Bankart repair in 148 patients (63 SK and 85 NSK), 3 on SLAP repair in 59 patients (59 SK), and 2 on rotator cuff repair in 464 patients (84 SK and 380 NSK). Also, 6 studies compared knot-tying with knotless techniques (3 Bankart repair studies and 3 SLAP repair studies), while the studies reporting the outcomes of SLAP repair evaluated SK-tying techniques only. The failure rate for Bankart repair was 3.2% (2/63) for SKs and 4.7% (4/85) for NSKs. The failure rate for rotator cuff repair was 2.4% (2/84) for SKs and 6.3% (24/380) for NSKs. The failure rate for SLAP repair was 11.9% (7/59). Because of inconsistencies in outcomes and procedures, no quantitative analysis was possible. The mean modified Coleman Methodology Score for all studies was 65.1 ± 8.77, indicating adequate methodology.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The literature on clinical outcomes using SKs or NSKs for shoulder procedures is limited to level 4 evidence. Future studies should be prospective and focus on comparing the use of SKs and NSKs for shoulder procedures to elucidate which arthroscopic knot results in superior clinical outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32426398
doi: 10.1177/2325967120911646
pii: 10.1177_2325967120911646
pmc: PMC7218991
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
2325967120911646Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: E.C.M. has received research support from Arthrex, Biomet, Breg, Mitek, Ossur, Smith & Nephew, and Stryker; consulting fees from DePuy and Zimmer Biomet; speaking fees from Arthrex; and royalties from Elsevier and Zimmer Biomet. A.J.S. has received educational support from Gemini Mountain Medical and Arthrex, honoraria from Encore Medical, and consulting fees from Medacta. M.L.W. has received educational support from Gemini Mountain Medical. A.F.V. has received educational support from Arthrex, consulting fees from Stryker and Smith & Nephew, and speaking fees from Arthrex and Smith & Nephew. R.M.F. has received grant support from Arthrex; educational support from Arthrex, Medwest, and Smith & Nephew; speaking fees from Arthrex; and royalties from Elsevier. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.
Références
Arthroscopy. 2005 Apr;21(4):405-11
pubmed: 15800519
Arthroscopy. 2013 Mar;29(3):485-90
pubmed: 23317565
Am J Sports Med. 2014 Aug;42(8):1978-84
pubmed: 24925142
Kans J Med. 2017 May 15;10(2):35-39
pubmed: 29472965
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978 Jan;60(1):1-16
pubmed: 624747
Arthroscopy. 2004 Jul;20(6):620-6
pubmed: 15241314
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2010 Mar;19(2):236-43
pubmed: 19995682
Arthroscopy. 2004 Jan;20(1):62-8
pubmed: 14716281
J Orthop. 2018 May 07;15(2):553-557
pubmed: 29881192
Arthroscopy. 2004 May;20(5):489-502
pubmed: 15122139
Arthroscopy. 1995 Apr;11(2):199-206
pubmed: 7794433
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2000 Feb;10(1):2-11
pubmed: 10693606
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003 Mar;(408):311-8
pubmed: 12616076
J Exp Orthop. 2018 Jun 15;5(1):19
pubmed: 29904825
Am J Sports Med. 2009 May;37(5):929-36
pubmed: 19229046
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009 Jul;17(7):844-9
pubmed: 19404611
Arthroscopy. 2007 Aug;23(8):884-8
pubmed: 17681211
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019 Feb 20;101(4):e14
pubmed: 30801382
Arthroscopy. 2017 Aug;33(8):1594-1602
pubmed: 28457677
Orthop J Sports Med. 2019 Jan 24;7(1):2325967118822452
pubmed: 30719483
Acta Orthop Belg. 2008 Oct;74(5):596-601
pubmed: 19058691
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008 Oct;16(10):957-66
pubmed: 18719890
Arthroscopy. 2005 Jan;21(1):69-76
pubmed: 15650669
Arthroscopy. 2006 Jul;22(7):736-41
pubmed: 16843809
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Nov;471(11):3514-22
pubmed: 23836242
J Orthop Res. 2016 Oct;34(10):1804-1807
pubmed: 26861812
Arthroscopy. 1999 Jul-Aug;15(5):515-21
pubmed: 10424555
Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 01;4:1
pubmed: 25554246
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987 Jan;(214):160-4
pubmed: 3791738
Arthroscopy. 2006 Dec;22(12):1276-82
pubmed: 17157725
Arthroscopy. 2001 Oct;17(8):850-5
pubmed: 11600983
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2016 Jul;74(7):1304-12
pubmed: 26979258
Arthroscopy. 2011 Jun;27(6):750-4
pubmed: 21624669
Arthroscopy. 2006 Aug;22(8):827-32
pubmed: 16904578
Arthroscopy. 2001 Apr;17(4):348-52
pubmed: 11288004
Arthroscopy. 2014 Apr;30(4):422-7
pubmed: 24680302
Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2010 Dec;39(12):577-81
pubmed: 21720574
Am J Sports Med. 1997 Jan-Feb;25(1):113-7
pubmed: 9006704
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007 Jul-Aug;16(4):438-42
pubmed: 17507243
Arthroscopy. 2009 Feb;25(2):192-9
pubmed: 19171280
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1995;3(1):26-33
pubmed: 7773818
Musculoskelet Surg. 2020 Apr;104(1):49-57
pubmed: 30762217
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2018 Sep;138(9):1273-1285
pubmed: 29789946
Iowa Orthop J. 2018;38:79-86
pubmed: 30104928
Arthroscopy. 2011 Oct;27(10):1409-21
pubmed: 21872421
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016 Feb;24(2):464-9
pubmed: 25427975
Am J Sports Med. 2013 Feb;41(2):296-301
pubmed: 23299852
Arthroscopy. 2016 Jul;32(7):1389-99
pubmed: 27117823
Arthroscopy. 2013 Aug;29(8):1380-6
pubmed: 23906277