Purpose This study aims to compare single-row suture-anchors (SA) versus transosseous arthroscopic (TO) technique in the treatment of patients with rotator cuff tears in terms of clinical structural outcomes at atleast 24 months of follow-up. Methods The systematic review was performed according to “PRISMA guidelines” (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses), in order to identify all the studies comparing clinical, both subjective and objective, outcomes with 24 months follow-up minimum in patients undergoing arthroscopic RC repair with the SR and TO technique. OVID-MEDLINE®, Cochrane, SCOPUS and PubMed were searched from January 2010 to October 2022 to identify relevant studies, using the following key words, that were combined together to achieve maximum search strategy sensitivity: “Rotator cuff tear” OR “repair” OR “shoulder” OR “reconstruction” OR “suture” OR “arthroscopic” OR “single-row” OR “transosseous”. Results Six papers were finally analyzed in this meta-analysis. The weighted mean difference on Constant scores and for ASES for studies considering suture-anchors (SA) group showed good outcomes. The weighted mean difference of Constant scores and of ASES for TO (transosseous) group showed good outcomes. The weighted mean difference of CONSTANT for TO versus SA groups showed no differences in the outcomes of SA and TO techniques for the repair of Rotator Cuff Tears at minimum 24 months follow-up. Conclusions The Arthroscopic transosseous rotator cuff repair technique and SA (suture-anchor) technique both lead to significant short-term improvement and satisfactory subjective outcoms scores with low complication/failure rates. No differences were found in the final outcome between the two techniques.

European Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology

De Giorgi S
;
Ottaviani G;Delmedico M;Suma M;
2024-01-01

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to compare single-row suture-anchors (SA) versus transosseous arthroscopic (TO) technique in the treatment of patients with rotator cuff tears in terms of clinical structural outcomes at atleast 24 months of follow-up. Methods The systematic review was performed according to “PRISMA guidelines” (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses), in order to identify all the studies comparing clinical, both subjective and objective, outcomes with 24 months follow-up minimum in patients undergoing arthroscopic RC repair with the SR and TO technique. OVID-MEDLINE®, Cochrane, SCOPUS and PubMed were searched from January 2010 to October 2022 to identify relevant studies, using the following key words, that were combined together to achieve maximum search strategy sensitivity: “Rotator cuff tear” OR “repair” OR “shoulder” OR “reconstruction” OR “suture” OR “arthroscopic” OR “single-row” OR “transosseous”. Results Six papers were finally analyzed in this meta-analysis. The weighted mean difference on Constant scores and for ASES for studies considering suture-anchors (SA) group showed good outcomes. The weighted mean difference of Constant scores and of ASES for TO (transosseous) group showed good outcomes. The weighted mean difference of CONSTANT for TO versus SA groups showed no differences in the outcomes of SA and TO techniques for the repair of Rotator Cuff Tears at minimum 24 months follow-up. Conclusions The Arthroscopic transosseous rotator cuff repair technique and SA (suture-anchor) technique both lead to significant short-term improvement and satisfactory subjective outcoms scores with low complication/failure rates. No differences were found in the final outcome between the two techniques.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11586/467022
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus ND
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 0
social impact