Anuj V Mehta1, Christopher Wilson2, Tonya S King2, Robert A Gallo3. 1. Penn State University College of Medicine, United States of America. Electronic address: amehta1@pennstatehealth.psu.edu. 2. Penn State University College of Medicine, United States of America. 3. Penn State University College of Medicine, United States of America; Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Department of Orthopaedics, United States of America.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Two major techniques are used to repair complete quadriceps tendon ruptures, transosseous tunnel (TT) and the suture anchor (SA). There are multiple studies comparing the biomechanical outcomes of repairs performed with TT or SA. Our purpose was to compare the clinical outcomes following quadriceps tendon repair using SA and TT fixation techniques. METHODS: Three major search engines were used with predetermined keyword searches to perform a systematic review of literature. These studies were independently scanned by two reviewers using PRISMA criterion. All included studies had to include at least one of the following outcome measures: range of motion (ROM), Lysholm score, complications, and/or re-ruptures. RESULTS: Using three major search engines, 1039 articles were identified. After removing duplicates and screening for inclusion, 49 articles were reviewed. Two independent reviewers searched the studies to meet the inclusion criteria, and eight studies were selected. These eight studies included 156 knees in the TT group and 54 knees in the SA group. The TT group had a significantly better ROM after QT repair (132.5° versus 127.0°, p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in Lysholm scores between the TT group (92.6) and SA group (91.0, p = 0.11). There were significantly more complications in SA groups (9.3% versus 1.3%, p = 0.013), but not a significant difference in re-rupture rate between those undergoing SA vs. TT repair (3.7% versus 0%, p = 0.065). The SA group had a significantly higher age at time of surgery (63.62 vs. 54.32) CONCLUSION: The current study suggests that, following quadriceps tendon rupture, there are no significant differences in functional outcome between TT and SA techniques. Those undergoing TT repair attained a statistically significantly greater final ROM but this difference may not be clinically relevant. There was a statistically significantly higher rate of post-operative complications using SA technique.
INTRODUCTION: Two major techniques are used to repair complete quadriceps tendon ruptures, transosseous tunnel (TT) and the suture anchor (SA). There are multiple studies comparing the biomechanical outcomes of repairs performed with TT or SA. Our purpose was to compare the clinical outcomes following quadriceps tendon repair using SA and TT fixation techniques. METHODS: Three major search engines were used with predetermined keyword searches to perform a systematic review of literature. These studies were independently scanned by two reviewers using PRISMA criterion. All included studies had to include at least one of the following outcome measures: range of motion (ROM), Lysholm score, complications, and/or re-ruptures. RESULTS: Using three major search engines, 1039 articles were identified. After removing duplicates and screening for inclusion, 49 articles were reviewed. Two independent reviewers searched the studies to meet the inclusion criteria, and eight studies were selected. These eight studies included 156 knees in the TT group and 54 knees in the SA group. The TT group had a significantly better ROM after QT repair (132.5° versus 127.0°, p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in Lysholm scores between the TT group (92.6) and SA group (91.0, p = 0.11). There were significantly more complications in SA groups (9.3% versus 1.3%, p = 0.013), but not a significant difference in re-rupture rate between those undergoing SA vs. TT repair (3.7% versus 0%, p = 0.065). The SA group had a significantly higher age at time of surgery (63.62 vs. 54.32) CONCLUSION: The current study suggests that, following quadriceps tendon rupture, there are no significant differences in functional outcome between TT and SA techniques. Those undergoing TT repair attained a statistically significantly greater final ROM but this difference may not be clinically relevant. There was a statistically significantly higher rate of post-operative complications using SA technique.
Authors: John W Belk; Adam Lindsay; Darby A Houck; Jason L Dragoo; James W Genuario; Stephanie W Mayer; Rachel M Frank; Eric C McCarty Journal: Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Date: 2021-09-30