Comparison of Knotless and Knotted Single-Anchor Repair for Ruptures of the Upper Subscapularis Tendon: Outcomes at 2-Year Follow-up.
knotless
knotted
partial tear
subscapularis tendon
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:
Mar 2022
Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
27
11
2021
accepted:
08
12
2021
entrez:
21
3
2022
pubmed:
22
3
2022
medline:
22
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Both knotted and knotless single-anchor repair techniques are used to repair transmural ruptures of the upper subscapularis (SSC) tendon. However, it is still unclear which technique provides better clinical and radiological results. To compare the clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) outcomes of knotless and knotted single-anchor repair techniques in patients with a transmural rupture of the upper SSC tendon at 2-year follow-up. It was hypothesized that the 2 techniques would not differ significantly in outcomes. Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Forty patients with a transmural tear of the upper SSC tendon (grade 2 or 3 according to Fox and Romeo) were retrospectively enrolled. Depending on the repair technique, patients were assigned to either the knotless single-anchor or knotted single-anchor group. After a mean follow-up of 2.33 ± 0.43 years, patients were assessed by the ASES, WORC, OSS, CS, and SSV. A clinical examination that included the bear-hug, the lift-off, and the belly-press tests was performed, in which the force exerted by the subjects was measured. In addition, all patients underwent MRI of the affected shoulder to assess repair integrity, tendon width, fatty infiltration, signal-to-signal ratio of the upper and lower SSC muscle, and atrophy of the SSC muscle. No significant difference was found between the 2 groups on any of the clinical scores [ASES ( Both techniques can be used in surgical practice, as neither was found to be superior to the other in terms of clinical or imaging outcomes at 2-year follow-up.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Both knotted and knotless single-anchor repair techniques are used to repair transmural ruptures of the upper subscapularis (SSC) tendon. However, it is still unclear which technique provides better clinical and radiological results.
Purpose/Hypothesis
UNASSIGNED
To compare the clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) outcomes of knotless and knotted single-anchor repair techniques in patients with a transmural rupture of the upper SSC tendon at 2-year follow-up. It was hypothesized that the 2 techniques would not differ significantly in outcomes.
Study Design
UNASSIGNED
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
Forty patients with a transmural tear of the upper SSC tendon (grade 2 or 3 according to Fox and Romeo) were retrospectively enrolled. Depending on the repair technique, patients were assigned to either the knotless single-anchor or knotted single-anchor group. After a mean follow-up of 2.33 ± 0.43 years, patients were assessed by the ASES, WORC, OSS, CS, and SSV. A clinical examination that included the bear-hug, the lift-off, and the belly-press tests was performed, in which the force exerted by the subjects was measured. In addition, all patients underwent MRI of the affected shoulder to assess repair integrity, tendon width, fatty infiltration, signal-to-signal ratio of the upper and lower SSC muscle, and atrophy of the SSC muscle.
Results
UNASSIGNED
No significant difference was found between the 2 groups on any of the clinical scores [ASES (
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Both techniques can be used in surgical practice, as neither was found to be superior to the other in terms of clinical or imaging outcomes at 2-year follow-up.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35309232
doi: 10.1177/23259671221083591
pii: 10.1177_23259671221083591
pmc: PMC8928393
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
23259671221083591Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that there are no conflicts of interest in the authorship and publication of this contribution. 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
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1980 Jan-Feb;(146):37-41
pubmed: 7371267
Am J Sports Med. 2006 Oct;34(10):1586-93
pubmed: 16801689
Am J Sports Med. 2017 Sep;45(11):2555-2562
pubmed: 28787191
Am J Sports Med. 2014 Apr;42(4):826-30
pubmed: 24500916
Am J Sports Med. 2011 Jun;39(6):1255-62
pubmed: 21335343
J Korean Med Sci. 2016 Sep;31(9):1472-8
pubmed: 27510393
Arthroscopy. 2008 Sep;24(9):997-1004
pubmed: 18760206
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016 Dec;24(12):3745-3749
pubmed: 25173504
J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2007 Nov-Dec;16(6):717-21
pubmed: 18061114
Arthroscopy. 2011 Jun;27(6):861-6
pubmed: 21489743
Arthroscopy. 2012 Jul;28(7):909-15
pubmed: 22365267
Arthroscopy. 2017 Jul;33(7):1286-1293
pubmed: 28325692
Am J Sports Med. 2005 Dec;33(12):1831-7
pubmed: 16157858
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016 Dec;24(12):3855-3862
pubmed: 26318490
Int Orthop. 2016 May;40(5):975-9
pubmed: 26585865
Am J Sports Med. 2007 Jul;35(7):1153-61
pubmed: 17379917
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2015 Oct;101(6 Suppl):S265-8
pubmed: 26283053
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011 Feb;19(2):303-6
pubmed: 20890701
J Orthop Surg Res. 2020 Dec 7;15(1):585
pubmed: 33287832
Arthroscopy. 2013 Sep;29(9):1471-8
pubmed: 23916714
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016 Jul;24(7):2238-43
pubmed: 25813676
Am J Sports Med. 2003 Sep-Oct;31(5):744-50
pubmed: 12975196
Am J Sports Med. 2005 Dec;33(12):1825-30
pubmed: 16157850
Am J Sports Med. 2011 Nov;39(11):2338-46
pubmed: 21300808
Arthroscopy. 2008 Dec;24(12):1381-9
pubmed: 19038709
Arthroscopy. 2007 Jun;23(6):662-9
pubmed: 17560482
Am J Sports Med. 2019 May;47(6):1427-1433
pubmed: 31042439
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019 Jan;27(1):277-288
pubmed: 30317525
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018 Jan;26(1):161-168
pubmed: 28643102
Arthroscopy. 2012 Nov;28(11):1592-600
pubmed: 22922004
J Chronic Dis. 1985;38(1):27-36
pubmed: 3972947
Arthroscopy. 2006 Sep;22(9):1014-27
pubmed: 16952733
Arthroscopy. 2011 Aug;27(8):1123-8
pubmed: 21704473
Arthroscopy. 2002 May-Jun;18(5):454-63
pubmed: 11987054
Arthroscopy. 2006 Oct;22(10):1076-84
pubmed: 17027405
Am J Sports Med. 2016 Jan;44(1):183-90
pubmed: 26564791
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009 Dec;17(12):1477-84
pubmed: 19693488
Am J Sports Med. 1996 Sep-Oct;24(5):589-93
pubmed: 8883677
Int J Shoulder Surg. 2011 Oct;5(4):90-4
pubmed: 22223958
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010 Jun;468(6):1467-8
pubmed: 20108131
Clin J Sport Med. 2003 Mar;13(2):84-92
pubmed: 12629425
Arthroscopy. 2022 Mar;38(3):1019-1027
pubmed: 34606935
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2008 May;90(4):326-31
pubmed: 18492399
Arthroscopy. 2018 Jun;34(6):1785
pubmed: 29804602
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Jul;(304):78-83
pubmed: 8020238
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Jun;89(6):1184-93
pubmed: 17545420
Arthroscopy. 2005 Nov;21(11):1307-16
pubmed: 16325080