PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: The use of all-suture anchors for rotator cuff repair is increasing. Potential benefits include decreased bone loss and decreased damage to the chondral surface. Minimal evidence exists comparing outcomes among medial-row anchor fixation methods in double-row suture bridge rotator cuff repair.
UNASSIGNED: To compare the clinical outcomes between all-suture and solid medial-row anchors in double-row suture bridge rotator cuff repair.
UNASSIGNED: Case series; Level of evidence, 4.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 352 patients (mean age at surgery, 60.3 years) underwent double-row suture bridge rotator cuff repair at our institution. Patients were separated into 2 groups based on whether they underwent all-suture (n = 280) or solid (n = 72) anchor fixation for the medial row. Outcomes data were collected via an ongoing longitudinal data repository or through telephone calls (minimum follow-up time, 2.0 years; mean follow-up time, 3.0 years). Outcomes were evaluated using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) standardized shoulder assessment form and the visual analog scale (VAS). The same rehabilitation protocol was administered to all patients. The proportions of patients meeting previously published Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) thresholds were calculated for the outcome measures, and outcome scores and the proportions of patients meeting PASS thresholds between groups were compared using linear and logistic regression, respectively.
UNASSIGNED: The groups did not differ in terms of age at surgery, sex distribution, rotator cuff tear size, or number of medial-row anchors used. The solid anchor group had a longer follow-up time compared with the all-suture anchor group (3.6 ± 0.7 vs 2.8 ± 0.8 years, respectively; P < .01). After controlling for follow-up time, the solid and all-suture anchor groups did not differ in ASES scores (89.6 ± 17.8 vs 88.8 ± 16.7, respectively; P = .44) or VAS scores (1.1 ± 2.1 vs 1.2 ± 2.1, respectively; P = .37). Similarly, after controlling for follow-up time, the solid and all-suture anchor groups did not differ in the proportions of patients meeting PASS cutoffs for the ASES (84.7% vs 80.7%, respectively; P = .44) or the VAS (80.6% vs 75.0%, respectively; P = .83).
UNASSIGNED: Double-row suture bridge rotator cuff repair using all-suture anchors for medial-row fixation demonstrated similar excellent clinical outcomes to rotator cuff repair using solid medial-row anchors.
UNASSIGNED: To compare the clinical outcomes between all-suture and solid medial-row anchors in double-row suture bridge rotator cuff repair.
UNASSIGNED: Case series; Level of evidence, 4.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 352 patients (mean age at surgery, 60.3 years) underwent double-row suture bridge rotator cuff repair at our institution. Patients were separated into 2 groups based on whether they underwent all-suture (n = 280) or solid (n = 72) anchor fixation for the medial row. Outcomes data were collected via an ongoing longitudinal data repository or through telephone calls (minimum follow-up time, 2.0 years; mean follow-up time, 3.0 years). Outcomes were evaluated using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) standardized shoulder assessment form and the visual analog scale (VAS). The same rehabilitation protocol was administered to all patients. The proportions of patients meeting previously published Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) thresholds were calculated for the outcome measures, and outcome scores and the proportions of patients meeting PASS thresholds between groups were compared using linear and logistic regression, respectively.
UNASSIGNED: The groups did not differ in terms of age at surgery, sex distribution, rotator cuff tear size, or number of medial-row anchors used. The solid anchor group had a longer follow-up time compared with the all-suture anchor group (3.6 ± 0.7 vs 2.8 ± 0.8 years, respectively; P < .01). After controlling for follow-up time, the solid and all-suture anchor groups did not differ in ASES scores (89.6 ± 17.8 vs 88.8 ± 16.7, respectively; P = .44) or VAS scores (1.1 ± 2.1 vs 1.2 ± 2.1, respectively; P = .37). Similarly, after controlling for follow-up time, the solid and all-suture anchor groups did not differ in the proportions of patients meeting PASS cutoffs for the ASES (84.7% vs 80.7%, respectively; P = .44) or the VAS (80.6% vs 75.0%, respectively; P = .83).
UNASSIGNED: Double-row suture bridge rotator cuff repair using all-suture anchors for medial-row fixation demonstrated similar excellent clinical outcomes to rotator cuff repair using solid medial-row anchors.
摘要：
■用于肩袖修复的全缝线锚钉的使用正在增加。潜在的益处包括减少骨丢失和减少对软骨表面的损伤。在双排缝合桥肩袖修复中，比较内侧排锚钉固定方法的结果的证据很少。
■比较双排缝线桥肩袖修复中全缝线和实心内侧排锚的临床结果。
■案例系列；证据级别，4.
■总共352名患者（手术时的平均年龄，60.3年）在我们机构接受了双排缝线桥肩袖修复。根据患者是否进行了全缝合（n=280）或内侧行的固体（n=72）锚固固定，将患者分为2组。通过持续的纵向数据存储库或通过电话收集结果数据（最短随访时间，2.0年；平均随访时间，3.0年）。使用美国肩肘外科医生（ASES）标准化肩部评估表和视觉模拟量表（VAS）评估结果。对所有患者施用相同的康复方案。计算符合先前公布的患者可接受症状状态（PASS）阈值的患者比例，用于结果测量。使用线性和逻辑回归比较两组之间的结果评分和达到PASS阈值的患者比例，分别。
■两组在手术年龄方面没有差异，性别分布，肩袖撕裂尺寸,或使用的内侧行锚固件的数量。固体锚组较全缝合锚组有更长的随访时间(3.6±0.7vs2.8±0.8年,分别为；P<0.01）。控制随访时间后，实心和全缝合锚钉组的ASES评分(分别为89.6±17.8vs88.8±16.7;P=.44)或VAS评分(分别为1.1±2.1vs1.2±2.1;P=.37)均无差异.同样，在控制随访时间后，固体和全缝合锚钉组满足ASESPASS截止值的患者比例没有差异(84.7%vs80.7%,分别为；P=0.44)或VAS(80.6%对75.0%，分别；P=.83）。
■使用全缝线锚钉进行内侧行固定的双排缝线桥肩袖修复与使用实心内侧行锚钉进行肩袖修复的临床效果相似。
■比较双排缝线桥肩袖修复中全缝线和实心内侧排锚的临床结果。
■案例系列；证据级别，4.
■总共352名患者（手术时的平均年龄，60.3年）在我们机构接受了双排缝线桥肩袖修复。根据患者是否进行了全缝合（n=280）或内侧行的固体（n=72）锚固固定，将患者分为2组。通过持续的纵向数据存储库或通过电话收集结果数据（最短随访时间，2.0年；平均随访时间，3.0年）。使用美国肩肘外科医生（ASES）标准化肩部评估表和视觉模拟量表（VAS）评估结果。对所有患者施用相同的康复方案。计算符合先前公布的患者可接受症状状态（PASS）阈值的患者比例，用于结果测量。使用线性和逻辑回归比较两组之间的结果评分和达到PASS阈值的患者比例，分别。
■两组在手术年龄方面没有差异，性别分布，肩袖撕裂尺寸,或使用的内侧行锚固件的数量。固体锚组较全缝合锚组有更长的随访时间(3.6±0.7vs2.8±0.8年,分别为；P<0.01）。控制随访时间后，实心和全缝合锚钉组的ASES评分(分别为89.6±17.8vs88.8±16.7;P=.44)或VAS评分(分别为1.1±2.1vs1.2±2.1;P=.37)均无差异.同样，在控制随访时间后，固体和全缝合锚钉组满足ASESPASS截止值的患者比例没有差异(84.7%vs80.7%,分别为；P=0.44)或VAS(80.6%对75.0%，分别；P=.83）。
■使用全缝线锚钉进行内侧行固定的双排缝线桥肩袖修复与使用实心内侧行锚钉进行肩袖修复的临床效果相似。
