| Literature DB >> 33437620 |
Yang Liu1, Sai C Fu1,2, Hio T Leong1, Samuel Ka-Kin Ling1, Joo H Oh3, Patrick Shu-Hang Yung1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND ANDEntities:
Keywords: Animal disease models; Functional assessment; Motor activity; Recovery of function; Rotator cuff injuries
Year: 2020 PMID: 33437620 PMCID: PMC7773935 DOI: 10.1016/j.jot.2020.02.012
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Orthop Translat ISSN: 2214-031X Impact factor: 5.191
Figure 1Flow chart of study selection based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria is shown.
Quality assessment of included studies.
| Study | Unity | Surgery standardisation | Acclimatisation and habituation | Complications in follow-up | Data normalisation | Variable coefficient | Randomisation and blindness | Total score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sarver et al., 2008 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| Perry et al., 2009 [ | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Sarver et al., 2010 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| Hsu et al., 2011 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
| Yamazaki et al., 2014 [ | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| Bell et al., 2015 [ | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| Park et al., 2015 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| Sahin et al., 2015 [ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| Sevivas et al., 2015 [ | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Yamaguchi et al., 2015 [ | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| Kim et al.,2017 [ | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 |
| Wang et al., 2018 [ | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| Sevivas et al., 2017 [ | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| Moser et al., 2018 [ | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
Functional changes in different animal models.
| Studies | Species | Rotator cuff injuries | Functional assessments | Follow-ups (day) | Functional changes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kim et al. | Rats | SS tear | Gait analysis | 28 | No difference to the baseline |
| Perry et al. | Rats | SS tear | Gait analysis | 56 | Paw width and stride length were less than those in the uninjured control |
| Moser et al., 2018 [ | Mice | SS tear | Gait analysis | 28 | No difference to the sham group |
| Park et al. | Rabbits | SSc tear | Open field test | 28 | Walking distance increased from the baseline |
| Wang et al. | Mice | SS, IS tear | Gait analysis | 42 | Stride length, step width, paw print area decreased from the baseline |
| Yamazaki et al., 2014 [ | Rats | SS, IS tear | Gait analysis | 56 | Stride length, print area and contact intensity were less than those in the sham group |
| Yamaguchi et al., 2015 [ | Rats | SS, IS tear | Gait analysis | 27 | Stands and paw print area were less than those in the sham group |
| Perry et al. | Rats | SS, IS tear | Gait analysis Passive ROM | 56 | Stride length, step width, speed, and passive ROM were less than uninjured control |
| Hsu et al. | Rats | SS, IS tear | Gait analysis | 28 | GRF decreased from the baseline |
| Sevivas et al. | Rats | SS, IS tear | Open field test, | 112 | Travel distance and vertical count were not different from the sham group |
| Sevivas et al. | Rats | SS, IS tear | Staircase test | 112 | No difference to the sham group |
| Bell et al. | Mice | SS repair | Gait analysis | 14 | Stride length decreased from the baseline |
| Sarver et al. | Rats | SS repair | Gait analysis | 56 | Step length and GRF decreased from the baseline |
| Moser et al., 2018 [ | Mice | SS repair | Gait analysis | 28 | Paw print area was larger than that in the uninjured control |
| Sarver et al. | Rats | SS repair | Passive ROM | 56 | Passive ROM decreased from baseline |
| Sahin et al. | Rats | SS repair | Running performance | 84 | Penalty score was higher than the uninjured control |
| Yamazaki et al., 2014 [ | Rats | SS, IS repair | Gait analysis | 56 | Stride length, print area, contact intensity were less than the sham group |
| Wang et al. | Mice | SS, IS immediate repair/delayed repair | Gait analysis | 42 | Stride length, stance width, and paw print area were higher in the immediate repair group than the delayed repair groups |
| Hsu et al. | Rats | SS, IS delayed repair | Gait analysis | 28 | GRF decreased from the baseline |
RC: rotator cuff; SS: supraspinatus tendon; IS: infraspinatus tendon; SSc: subscapularis tendon; GRF: ground reaction force; ROM: range of motion