Erik Hohmann1,2,3, Anya König4, Cor-Jacques Kat5, Vaida Glatt6, Kevin Tetsworth7,8,9,10, Natalie Keough4. 1. Clinical Medical School, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Australia. ehohmann@hotmail.com. 2. Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa. ehohmann@hotmail.com. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Sports Medicine, Valiant Clinic/Houston Methodist Group, PO Box 414296, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. ehohmann@hotmail.com. 4. Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa. 5. Faculty of Engineering, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa. 6. University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX, USA. 7. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Royal Brisbane Hospital, Herston, Australia. 8. Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Australia. 9. Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. 10. Orthopaedic Research Institute of Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing single- and double-row biomechanical studies to evaluate load to failure, mode of failure and gap formation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and Google Scholar was performed from 1990 through 2016. The inclusion criteria were: documentation of ultimate load to failure, failure modes and documentation of elongation or gap formation. Studies were excluded if the study protocol did not use human specimens. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plot and Egger's test. The risk of bias was established using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. Heterogeneity was assessed using χ 2 and I 2 statistic. RESULTS: Eight studies were included. The funnel plot was asymmetric suggesting publication bias, which was confirmed by Egger's test (p = 0.04). The pooled estimate for load to failure demonstrated significant differences (SMD 1.228, 95% CI: 0.55-5.226, p = 0.006, I 2 = 60.47%), favouring double-row repair. There were no differences for failure modes. The pooled estimate for elongation/gap formation demonstrated significant differences (SMD 0.783, 95% CI: 0.169-1.398, p = 0.012, I 2 = 58.8%), favouring double-row repair. CONCLUSION: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that double-row repair is able to tolerate a significantly greater load to failure. Gap formation was also significantly lower in the double-row repair group, but both of these findings should be interpreted with caution because of the inherent interstudy heterogeneity. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing single- and double-row biomechanical studies to evaluate load to failure, mode of failure and gap formation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and Google Scholar was performed from 1990 through 2016. The inclusion criteria were: documentation of ultimate load to failure, failure modes and documentation of elongation or gap formation. Studies were excluded if the study protocol did not use human specimens. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plot and Egger's test. The risk of bias was established using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. Heterogeneity was assessed using χ 2 and I 2 statistic. RESULTS: Eight studies were included. The funnel plot was asymmetric suggesting publication bias, which was confirmed by Egger's test (p = 0.04). The pooled estimate for load to failure demonstrated significant differences (SMD 1.228, 95% CI: 0.55-5.226, p = 0.006, I 2 = 60.47%), favouring double-row repair. There were no differences for failure modes. The pooled estimate for elongation/gap formation demonstrated significant differences (SMD 0.783, 95% CI: 0.169-1.398, p = 0.012, I 2 = 58.8%), favouring double-row repair. CONCLUSION: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that double-row repair is able to tolerate a significantly greater load to failure. Gap formation was also significantly lower in the double-row repair group, but both of these findings should be interpreted with caution because of the inherent interstudy heterogeneity. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Authors: Leesa M Galatz; Craig M Ball; Sharlene A Teefey; William D Middleton; Ken Yamaguchi Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Ji Soon Park; Michelle H McGarry; Sean T Campbell; Hyuk Jun Seo; Yeon Soo Lee; Sae Hoon Kim; Thay Q Lee; Joo Han Oh Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2015-07-06 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Augustus D Mazzocca; Peter J Millett; Carlos A Guanche; Stephen A Santangelo; Robert A Arciero Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2005-10-06 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Christopher D Smith; Susan Alexander; Adam M Hill; Pol E Huijsmans; Anthony M J Bull; Andrew A Amis; Joe F De Beer; Andrew L Wallace Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Maxwell C Park; Neal S ElAttrache; James E Tibone; Christopher S Ahmad; Bong-Jae Jun; Thay Q Lee Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2007-02-22 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Kathleen A Derwin; Sambit Sahoo; Alexander Zajichek; Gregory Strnad; Kurt P Spindler; Joseph P Iannotti; Eric T Ricchetti Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2018-10-11 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Nathan P Fackler; Cooper B Ehlers; Kylie T Callan; Arya Amirhekmat; Eric J Smith; Robert L Parisien; Dean Wang Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2022-05-10
Authors: Felix Porschke; Christoph Luecke; Thorsten Guehring; Christel Weiss; Stefan Studier-Fischer; Paul Alfred Gruetzner; Marc Schnetzke Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2020-08-13 Impact factor: 3.934