BACKGROUND: Many approaches exist for managing rotator cuff tears. PURPOSE: To compare the benefits and harms of nonoperative and operative interventions on clinically important outcomes in adults with rotator cuff tears. DATA SOURCES: 12 electronic databases (1990 to September 2009), gray literature, trial registries, and reference lists were searched. STUDY SELECTION: Controlled and uncontrolled studies that assessed nonoperative or operative treatments or postoperative rehabilitation for adults with confirmed rotator cuff tears were included. Operative studies in English-language publications and nonoperative and postoperative rehabilitation studies in English, French, or German were considered. Studies were assessed in duplicate. DATA EXTRACTION: 2 reviewers assessed risk for bias by using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. One reviewer rated the evidence by using a modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Data were extracted by one reviewer and verified by another. DATA SYNTHESIS: 137 studies met eligibility criteria. All trials had high risk for bias. Cohort and uncontrolled studies were of moderate quality. Reported functional outcomes did not differ between open versus mini-open repair, mini-open versus arthroscopic repair, arthroscopic repair with versus without acromioplasty, or single-row versus double-row fixation. Earlier return to work was reported for mini-open repair versus open repair and for continuous passive motion with physical therapy versus physical therapy alone. Open repairs showed greater improvement in function than did arthroscopic debridement. Complication rates were low across all interventions. LIMITATIONS: Limited evidence, which was often of low quality, precluded conclusions for most comparisons. Language restrictions may have excluded some relevant studies, and selective outcome reporting may have introduced bias. CONCLUSION: Evidence on the comparative effectiveness and harms of various operative and nonoperative treatments for rotator cuff tears is limited and inconclusive. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
BACKGROUND: Many approaches exist for managing rotator cuff tears. PURPOSE: To compare the benefits and harms of nonoperative and operative interventions on clinically important outcomes in adults with rotator cuff tears. DATA SOURCES: 12 electronic databases (1990 to September 2009), gray literature, trial registries, and reference lists were searched. STUDY SELECTION: Controlled and uncontrolled studies that assessed nonoperative or operative treatments or postoperative rehabilitation for adults with confirmed rotator cuff tears were included. Operative studies in English-language publications and nonoperative and postoperative rehabilitation studies in English, French, or German were considered. Studies were assessed in duplicate. DATA EXTRACTION: 2 reviewers assessed risk for bias by using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. One reviewer rated the evidence by using a modified GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. Data were extracted by one reviewer and verified by another. DATA SYNTHESIS: 137 studies met eligibility criteria. All trials had high risk for bias. Cohort and uncontrolled studies were of moderate quality. Reported functional outcomes did not differ between open versus mini-open repair, mini-open versus arthroscopic repair, arthroscopic repair with versus without acromioplasty, or single-row versus double-row fixation. Earlier return to work was reported for mini-open repair versus open repair and for continuous passive motion with physical therapy versus physical therapy alone. Open repairs showed greater improvement in function than did arthroscopic debridement. Complication rates were low across all interventions. LIMITATIONS: Limited evidence, which was often of low quality, precluded conclusions for most comparisons. Language restrictions may have excluded some relevant studies, and selective outcome reporting may have introduced bias. CONCLUSION: Evidence on the comparative effectiveness and harms of various operative and nonoperative treatments for rotator cuff tears is limited and inconclusive. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Authors: P B de Witte; P van der Zwaal; E R A van Arkel; R G H H Nelissen; J H de Groot Journal: Med Biol Eng Comput Date: 2013-07-06 Impact factor: 2.602
Authors: Paul S Micevych; Ankur Garg; Lucas T Buchler; Guido Marra; Matthew D Saltzman; Todd B Parrish; Amee L Seitz Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2018-10-17 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Kevin J Cronin; Scott D Mair; Greg S Hawk; Katherine L Thompson; Carolyn M Hettrich; Cale A Jacobs Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Sambit Sahoo; Jill Mohr; Gregory J Strnad; Jose Vega; Morgan Jones; Mark S Schickendantz; Lutul Farrow; Kurt P Spindler; Joseph P Iannotti; Eric T Ricchetti; Kathleen A Derwin Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 3.019