Eduardo Portela-Parra, Elliot Sappey-Marinier, Kaitlyn Julian, Stefano A Bini
{"title":"经骨缝合与缝合锚钉修复髋关节外展肌的临床结果:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Eduardo Portela-Parra, Elliot Sappey-Marinier, Kaitlyn Julian, Stefano A Bini","doi":"10.1177/23259671241290320","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Hip abductor tendon tears have been identified as a common cause of greater trochanteric pain syndrome. While abductor tendon tears are often managed surgically, the optimal tendon attachment technique remains controversial.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the outcomes of hip abductor tendon repair between the suture anchor (SA) and transosseous suture (TS) techniques.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature search was performed in June 2023 in Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases. Studies reporting pre- and postoperative clinical outcomes of hip abductor repairs using SA or TS fixation with a minimum follow-up of 12 months were included in our analysis. From 608 studies initially identified, 21 studies (14 SA and 7 TS) with a total of 680 patients met the inclusion criteria. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist guided the reporting and data abstraction, and the quality of the studies was assessed using the methodological index for non-randomized studies checklist. The results were presented as a narrative summary using descriptive statistics such as ranges and agreement statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Significant pre- to postoperative improvement in pain scores and functional outcomes were reported on all included studies. The mean improvement on the Harris Hip Score/modified Harris Hip Score was 32.5 (95% CI, 28.4-36.7) for the SA technique versus 21.9 (95% CI, 6.7-37.0) for the TS technique, while mean improvement in pain according to the visual analog scale was 5.1 ± 2.3 for SA and 4.8 ± 2.2 for TS (<i>P</i> = .9). There was a trend toward statistical significance regarding retear rates, with higher rates for SA (6.7% ± 7.6%) versus TS (1.3% ± 4.7%) (<i>t</i>[13.9] = 2.0; <i>P</i> = .06).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We observed no significant difference between SA and TS regarding improvements in patient-reported hip outcome and pain scores. However, SA trended toward a higher retear rate. Future research should propose a classification scheme that considers tear size and morphology, the extent of associated muscle degeneration, and the distance of tendon retraction to provide more context for the understanding of expected functional outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":19646,"journal":{"name":"Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine","volume":"13 1","pages":"23259671241290320"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11694278/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical Outcomes of Hip Abductor Repair Using Transosseous Sutures Versus Suture Anchors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Eduardo Portela-Parra, Elliot Sappey-Marinier, Kaitlyn Julian, Stefano A Bini\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/23259671241290320\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Hip abductor tendon tears have been identified as a common cause of greater trochanteric pain syndrome. While abductor tendon tears are often managed surgically, the optimal tendon attachment technique remains controversial.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the outcomes of hip abductor tendon repair between the suture anchor (SA) and transosseous suture (TS) techniques.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A literature search was performed in June 2023 in Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases. Studies reporting pre- and postoperative clinical outcomes of hip abductor repairs using SA or TS fixation with a minimum follow-up of 12 months were included in our analysis. From 608 studies initially identified, 21 studies (14 SA and 7 TS) with a total of 680 patients met the inclusion criteria. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist guided the reporting and data abstraction, and the quality of the studies was assessed using the methodological index for non-randomized studies checklist. The results were presented as a narrative summary using descriptive statistics such as ranges and agreement statistics.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Significant pre- to postoperative improvement in pain scores and functional outcomes were reported on all included studies. The mean improvement on the Harris Hip Score/modified Harris Hip Score was 32.5 (95% CI, 28.4-36.7) for the SA technique versus 21.9 (95% CI, 6.7-37.0) for the TS technique, while mean improvement in pain according to the visual analog scale was 5.1 ± 2.3 for SA and 4.8 ± 2.2 for TS (<i>P</i> = .9). There was a trend toward statistical significance regarding retear rates, with higher rates for SA (6.7% ± 7.6%) versus TS (1.3% ± 4.7%) (<i>t</i>[13.9] = 2.0; <i>P</i> = .06).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We observed no significant difference between SA and TS regarding improvements in patient-reported hip outcome and pain scores. However, SA trended toward a higher retear rate. Future research should propose a classification scheme that considers tear size and morphology, the extent of associated muscle degeneration, and the distance of tendon retraction to provide more context for the understanding of expected functional outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19646,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"23259671241290320\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11694278/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/23259671241290320\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23259671241290320","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:髋关节外展肌腱撕裂已被确定为大转子痛综合征的常见原因。虽然外展肌腱撕裂通常通过手术治疗,但最佳肌腱附着技术仍然存在争议。目的:比较缝合锚钉(SA)和经骨缝合(TS)技术在髋关节外展肌腱修复中的效果。研究设计:系统评价;证据等级,4级。方法:于2023年6月在Embase、PubMed和Web of Science数据库进行文献检索。研究报告了使用SA或TS固定髋关节外展肌修复的术前和术后临床结果,随访时间至少为12个月。从最初确定的608项研究中,21项研究(14项SA和7项TS)共680例患者符合纳入标准。PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and meta - analysis)清单指导报告和数据提取,使用非随机研究清单的方法学指标评估研究的质量。使用描述性统计(如范围和协议统计)将结果呈现为叙述性摘要。结果:所有纳入的研究均报告了术后疼痛评分和功能预后的显著改善。SA技术的Harris髋关节评分/改良Harris髋关节评分的平均改善为32.5 (95% CI, 28.4-36.7),而TS技术的平均改善为21.9 (95% CI, 6.7-37.0),而根据视觉模拟量表,SA的平均疼痛改善为5.1±2.3,TS的平均疼痛改善为4.8±2.2 (P = 0.9)。复发率差异有统计学意义,SA的复发率(6.7%±7.6%)高于TS(1.3%±4.7%)(t[13.9] = 2.0;P = .06)。结论:我们观察到SA和TS在改善患者报告的髋关节预后和疼痛评分方面没有显著差异。然而,SA有更高的回收率的趋势。未来的研究应提出一种考虑撕裂大小和形态、相关肌肉退变程度和肌腱回缩距离的分类方案,为理解预期的功能结果提供更多的背景。
Clinical Outcomes of Hip Abductor Repair Using Transosseous Sutures Versus Suture Anchors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Background: Hip abductor tendon tears have been identified as a common cause of greater trochanteric pain syndrome. While abductor tendon tears are often managed surgically, the optimal tendon attachment technique remains controversial.
Purpose: To compare the outcomes of hip abductor tendon repair between the suture anchor (SA) and transosseous suture (TS) techniques.
Study design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.
Methods: A literature search was performed in June 2023 in Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases. Studies reporting pre- and postoperative clinical outcomes of hip abductor repairs using SA or TS fixation with a minimum follow-up of 12 months were included in our analysis. From 608 studies initially identified, 21 studies (14 SA and 7 TS) with a total of 680 patients met the inclusion criteria. The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist guided the reporting and data abstraction, and the quality of the studies was assessed using the methodological index for non-randomized studies checklist. The results were presented as a narrative summary using descriptive statistics such as ranges and agreement statistics.
Results: Significant pre- to postoperative improvement in pain scores and functional outcomes were reported on all included studies. The mean improvement on the Harris Hip Score/modified Harris Hip Score was 32.5 (95% CI, 28.4-36.7) for the SA technique versus 21.9 (95% CI, 6.7-37.0) for the TS technique, while mean improvement in pain according to the visual analog scale was 5.1 ± 2.3 for SA and 4.8 ± 2.2 for TS (P = .9). There was a trend toward statistical significance regarding retear rates, with higher rates for SA (6.7% ± 7.6%) versus TS (1.3% ± 4.7%) (t[13.9] = 2.0; P = .06).
Conclusion: We observed no significant difference between SA and TS regarding improvements in patient-reported hip outcome and pain scores. However, SA trended toward a higher retear rate. Future research should propose a classification scheme that considers tear size and morphology, the extent of associated muscle degeneration, and the distance of tendon retraction to provide more context for the understanding of expected functional outcomes.
期刊介绍:
The Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine (OJSM), developed by the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM), is a global, peer-reviewed, open access journal that combines the interests of researchers and clinical practitioners across orthopaedic sports medicine, arthroscopy, and knee arthroplasty.
Topics include original research in the areas of:
-Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, including surgical and nonsurgical treatment of orthopaedic sports injuries
-Arthroscopic Surgery (Shoulder/Elbow/Wrist/Hip/Knee/Ankle/Foot)
-Relevant translational research
-Sports traumatology/epidemiology
-Knee and shoulder arthroplasty
The OJSM also publishes relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).