Use of Suture Tapes Versus Conventional Sutures for Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repairs: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
biomechanics
conventional sutures
retear
rotator cuff repair
shoulder
suture tapes
Journal
The American journal of sports medicine
ISSN: 1552-3365
Titre abrégé: Am J Sports Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7609541
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 2022
01 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
20
3
2021
medline:
28
1
2022
entrez:
19
3
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Various suture materials are available for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. More recently, suture tapes have become popular as they are perceived to be easier to use with less soft tissue irritation. However, little is known about their biomechanical and clinical properties compared with conventional sutures in rotator cuff repairs. To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on whether suture tapes are biomechanically superior to conventional sutures in arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs and whether this translates to superior functional outcomes and a lower incidence of retears. Meta-analysis. The Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, PubMed, Medline, and Embase were used to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) criteria with the following search terms: (rotator cuff repair OR arthroscopic rotator cuff repair) AND ("tape" OR "wire" OR "cord" OR "suture"). Data pertaining to certain biomechanical properties (contact area, contact pressure, gap formation, load to failure, and stiffness), retears, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were extracted. The pooled outcome data were analyzed by random- and fixed-effects models. After abstract and full-text screening, 7 biomechanical and 6 clinical studies were included. All biomechanical studies were on animals, with 91 suture tapes and 91 conventional sutures compared. Suture tapes had higher contact pressure (mean difference [MD], 0.04 MPa; 95% CI, 0.01-0.08; Although biomechanically superior, suture tapes showed similar retear rates and postoperative function to conventional sutures. However, higher-quality clinical studies are required to investigate whether there are no true differences.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Various suture materials are available for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. More recently, suture tapes have become popular as they are perceived to be easier to use with less soft tissue irritation. However, little is known about their biomechanical and clinical properties compared with conventional sutures in rotator cuff repairs.
PURPOSE
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on whether suture tapes are biomechanically superior to conventional sutures in arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs and whether this translates to superior functional outcomes and a lower incidence of retears.
STUDY DESIGN
Meta-analysis.
METHODS
The Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, PubMed, Medline, and Embase were used to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) criteria with the following search terms: (rotator cuff repair OR arthroscopic rotator cuff repair) AND ("tape" OR "wire" OR "cord" OR "suture"). Data pertaining to certain biomechanical properties (contact area, contact pressure, gap formation, load to failure, and stiffness), retears, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were extracted. The pooled outcome data were analyzed by random- and fixed-effects models.
RESULTS
After abstract and full-text screening, 7 biomechanical and 6 clinical studies were included. All biomechanical studies were on animals, with 91 suture tapes and 91 conventional sutures compared. Suture tapes had higher contact pressure (mean difference [MD], 0.04 MPa; 95% CI, 0.01-0.08;
CONCLUSION
Although biomechanically superior, suture tapes showed similar retear rates and postoperative function to conventional sutures. However, higher-quality clinical studies are required to investigate whether there are no true differences.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33740395
doi: 10.1177/0363546521998318
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM