Inferior Clinical Outcomes Following Endoscopic Proximal Hamstring Repair in Patients with Chronic Degenerative Tears Despite the use of Dermal Allograft Augmentation.

Sean M Richards, Ryan S Marder, Sydney M Fasulo, Nicolas J Nadeau, Matthew J Kraeutler, Anthony J Scillia
{"title":"Inferior Clinical Outcomes Following Endoscopic Proximal Hamstring Repair in Patients with Chronic Degenerative Tears Despite the use of Dermal Allograft Augmentation.","authors":"Sean M Richards, Ryan S Marder, Sydney M Fasulo, Nicolas J Nadeau, Matthew J Kraeutler, Anthony J Scillia","doi":"10.1016/j.arthro.2024.10.046","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare clinical outcomes in patients undergoing endoscopic proximal hamstring repair with and without dermal allograft augmentation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was performed on patients undergoing endoscopic proximal hamstring repair (PHR) and proximal hamstring repair with dermal allograft augmentation (PHR-A) by a single surgeon between 2016 and 2023. Augmentation was utilized for cases of chronic degenerative tears (> 6 weeks from the time of initial injury) where hamstring tissue quality was deemed poor intraoperatively. A survey of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) was completed at a minimum of 1 year postoperatively. PROMs included a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain; University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Activity Scale; modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS); Hip Outcome Score-Sports-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS); and a Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE). The proportion of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) for PROMs were compared between groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty-four patients were included (42 PHR, 22 PHR-A). No differences were seen between the PHR and PHR-A groups in terms of age at surgery (49 ± 12 vs. 54 ± 9, p=0.08), sex, or body-mass index (BMI). There was a significantly longer time to follow-up (41.5±23.4 vs. 20.1±10.2 months, p<0.001) in the PHR group. There were significantly greater postoperative mHHS (82.7±15.1 vs. 72.0±18.0, p=0.02) and SANE (89.6±9.9 vs. 73.6±22.5, p=0.002) scores in the PHR group. There were no significant differences in postoperative VAS, UCLA, or HOS-SSS between groups. A greater proportion of patients in the PHR group achieved a SCB for mHHS (71% vs. 36%, p=0.008).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study demonstrates inferior clinical outcomes in patients undergoing endoscopic proximal hamstring repair with dermal allograft augmentation compared to patients undergoing endoscopic proximal hamstring repair without augmentation.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>III, retrospective comparative case series.</p>","PeriodicalId":55459,"journal":{"name":"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2024.10.046","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To compare clinical outcomes in patients undergoing endoscopic proximal hamstring repair with and without dermal allograft augmentation.

Methods: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was performed on patients undergoing endoscopic proximal hamstring repair (PHR) and proximal hamstring repair with dermal allograft augmentation (PHR-A) by a single surgeon between 2016 and 2023. Augmentation was utilized for cases of chronic degenerative tears (> 6 weeks from the time of initial injury) where hamstring tissue quality was deemed poor intraoperatively. A survey of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) was completed at a minimum of 1 year postoperatively. PROMs included a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain; University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Activity Scale; modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS); Hip Outcome Score-Sports-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS); and a Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE). The proportion of patients achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) for PROMs were compared between groups.

Results: Sixty-four patients were included (42 PHR, 22 PHR-A). No differences were seen between the PHR and PHR-A groups in terms of age at surgery (49 ± 12 vs. 54 ± 9, p=0.08), sex, or body-mass index (BMI). There was a significantly longer time to follow-up (41.5±23.4 vs. 20.1±10.2 months, p<0.001) in the PHR group. There were significantly greater postoperative mHHS (82.7±15.1 vs. 72.0±18.0, p=0.02) and SANE (89.6±9.9 vs. 73.6±22.5, p=0.002) scores in the PHR group. There were no significant differences in postoperative VAS, UCLA, or HOS-SSS between groups. A greater proportion of patients in the PHR group achieved a SCB for mHHS (71% vs. 36%, p=0.008).

Conclusions: Our study demonstrates inferior clinical outcomes in patients undergoing endoscopic proximal hamstring repair with dermal allograft augmentation compared to patients undergoing endoscopic proximal hamstring repair without augmentation.

Level of evidence: III, retrospective comparative case series.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
慢性退行性撕裂患者使用内窥镜近端腘绳肌修复术后的临床效果不佳,尽管使用了真皮异体移植增量。
目的:比较接受内窥镜腘绳肌近端修复术并进行和未进行真皮同种异体移植增量手术的患者的临床疗效:我们对前瞻性收集的数据进行了回顾性分析,研究对象是2016年至2023年期间接受内窥镜腘绳肌近端修复术(PHR)和真皮同种异体移植增量术(PHR-A)的患者。扩增术适用于慢性退行性撕裂病例(距初次损伤时间大于 6 周),术中认为腘绳肌组织质量不佳。术后至少 1 年完成了患者报告结果测量(PROMs)调查。PROMs包括疼痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)、加州大学洛杉矶分校(UCLA)活动量表、改良哈里斯髋关节评分(mHHS)、髋关节结果评分-运动特异性分量表(HOS-SSS)和单一评估数值评价(SANE)。比较各组间达到最小临床意义差异(MCID)、患者可接受症状状态(PASS)和PROMs实质性临床获益(SCB)的患者比例:共纳入 64 名患者(42 名 PHR,22 名 PHR-A)。PHR组和PHR-A组在手术年龄(49 ± 12 vs. 54 ± 9,P=0.08)、性别或体重指数(BMI)方面没有差异。随访时间明显更长(41.5±23.4 个月 vs. 20.1±10.2 个月,P=0.08):我们的研究表明,与接受内窥镜腘绳肌近端修复术并进行真皮同种异体移植增量的患者相比,接受内窥镜腘绳肌近端修复术并进行真皮同种异体移植增量的患者的临床疗效较差:III,回顾性比较病例系列。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.30
自引率
17.00%
发文量
555
审稿时长
58 days
期刊介绍: Nowhere is minimally invasive surgery explained better than in Arthroscopy, the leading peer-reviewed journal in the field. Every issue enables you to put into perspective the usefulness of the various emerging arthroscopic techniques. The advantages and disadvantages of these methods -- along with their applications in various situations -- are discussed in relation to their efficiency, efficacy and cost benefit. As a special incentive, paid subscribers also receive access to the journal expanded website.
期刊最新文献
Letter Regarding "Adding Dexmedetomidine to Intra-Articular Local Anesthetics Results in Prolonged Analgesia After Knee Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis" - Authors' Reply. Most Athletes who fail to Return to Sport After Latarjet Procedure Cite Psychological Factors: a Systematic Review. Author Reply to Letter to the Editor "Comments on the Article 'Anterior Opening-Wedge High Tibial Osteotomy in the Setting of Genu Recurvatum'". Comments on the article "Technical Note: Anterior opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy in the setting of genu recurvatum" published in Arthroscopy Techniques 2023, 12(11): e1559 - e1566. Editorial Commentary: Anatomic Tibiofibular and Partially Anatomic-Based Fibular Posterolateral Corner Reconstruction Techniques Are Biomechanically Superior to Non-Anatomic Reconstruction Techniques: A Tibial Tunnel is the Gold Standard for An Anatomic Reconstruction.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1