Matthew J Brown1, David A Pula1, Melissa A Kluczynski1, Terry Mashtare1, Leslie J Bisson2. 1. UBMD Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, University at Buffalo, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, U.S.A. 2. UBMD Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, University at Buffalo, State University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo, New York, U.S.A.. Electronic address: ljbisson@buffalo.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of suture configuration, repair method, and tear size on rotator cuff (RC) repair healing. METHODS: We conducted a literature search of articles that examined surgical treatment of RC tears published between January 2003 and September 2014. For single-row (SR) repairs, we calculated rerupture rates for simple, mattress, and modified Mason-Allen sutures while stratifying by tear size. All double-row repairs-those using 2 rows of suture anchors (DA) and those using a suture bridge (SB)--were performed using mattress sutures, and we compared rerupture rates by repair method while stratifying by tear size. A random-effects model with pooled estimates for between-study variance was used to estimate the overall rerupture proportion and corresponding 95% confidence interval for each group. Statistical significance was defined as P < .05. RESULTS: A total of 682 RC repairs from 13 studies were included. For SR repairs of tears measuring less than 3 cm, there was no significant difference in rerupture rates for modified Mason-Allen sutures versus simple sutures (P = .18). For SR repairs of tears measuring 3 cm or more, there was no significant difference in rerupture rates for mattress sutures versus simple sutures (P = .23). The rates of rerupture did not differ between SB and DA repairs for tears measuring less than 3 cm (P = .29) and 3 cm or more (P = .50). CONCLUSIONS: For SR repairs, there were no significant differences in rerupture rates between suture techniques for any repair method or tear size. All DA and SB repairs were secured with mattress sutures, and there were no differences in the rates of rerupture between these methods for either size category. These findings suggest that suture technique may not affect rerupture rates after RC repair. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level I through IV studies.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of suture configuration, repair method, and tear size on rotator cuff (RC) repair healing. METHODS: We conducted a literature search of articles that examined surgical treatment of RC tears published between January 2003 and September 2014. For single-row (SR) repairs, we calculated rerupture rates for simple, mattress, and modified Mason-Allen sutures while stratifying by tear size. All double-row repairs-those using 2 rows of suture anchors (DA) and those using a suture bridge (SB)--were performed using mattress sutures, and we compared rerupture rates by repair method while stratifying by tear size. A random-effects model with pooled estimates for between-study variance was used to estimate the overall rerupture proportion and corresponding 95% confidence interval for each group. Statistical significance was defined as P < .05. RESULTS: A total of 682 RC repairs from 13 studies were included. For SR repairs of tears measuring less than 3 cm, there was no significant difference in rerupture rates for modified Mason-Allen sutures versus simple sutures (P = .18). For SR repairs of tears measuring 3 cm or more, there was no significant difference in rerupture rates for mattress sutures versus simple sutures (P = .23). The rates of rerupture did not differ between SB and DA repairs for tears measuring less than 3 cm (P = .29) and 3 cm or more (P = .50). CONCLUSIONS: For SR repairs, there were no significant differences in rerupture rates between suture techniques for any repair method or tear size. All DA and SB repairs were secured with mattress sutures, and there were no differences in the rates of rerupture between these methods for either size category. These findings suggest that suture technique may not affect rerupture rates after RC repair. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level I through IV studies.
Authors: Benjamin B Rothrauff; Thierry Pauyo; Richard E Debski; Mark W Rodosky; Rocky S Tuan; Volker Musahl Journal: Tissue Eng Part B Rev Date: 2017-02-09 Impact factor: 6.389
Authors: Roland S Camenzind; Karl Wieser; Gion Fessel; Dominik C Meyer; Jess G Snedeker Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2016-04-18 Impact factor: 4.176