INTRODUCTION: There is a high rate of recurrence of tear and failed healing after rotator cuff repair. Several strategies have proposed to augment rotator cuff repairs to improve postoperative outcome and shoulder performance. We systematically review the literature on clinical outcome following rotator cuff augmentation. SOURCES OF DATA: We performed a comprehensive search of Medline, CINAHL, Embase and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, from inception of the database to 20 June 2012, using various combinations of keywords. The reference lists of the previously selected articles were then examined by hand. Only studies focusing on clinical outcomes of human patients who had undergone augmented rotator cuff repair were selected. We then evaluated the methodological quality of each article using the Coleman methodology score (CMS), a 10 criteria scoring list assessing the methodological quality of the selected studies (CMS). AREAS OF AGREEMENT: Thirty-two articles were included in the present review. Two were retrospective studies, and 30 were prospective. Biologic, synthetic and cellular devices were used in 24, 7 and 1 studies, respectively. The mean modified Coleman methodology score was 64.0. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: Heterogeneity of the clinical outcome scores makes it difficult to compare different studies. GROWING POINTS: None of the augmentation devices available is without problems, and each one presents intrinsic weaknesses. There is no dramatic increase in clinical and functional assessment after augmented procedures, especially if compared with control groups. RESEARCH: More and better scientific evidence is necessary to use augmentation of rotator cuff repairs in routine clinical practice.
Augmentation techniques for rotator cuff repair.
MAFFULLI, Nicola;
2013-01-01
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There is a high rate of recurrence of tear and failed healing after rotator cuff repair. Several strategies have proposed to augment rotator cuff repairs to improve postoperative outcome and shoulder performance. We systematically review the literature on clinical outcome following rotator cuff augmentation. SOURCES OF DATA: We performed a comprehensive search of Medline, CINAHL, Embase and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, from inception of the database to 20 June 2012, using various combinations of keywords. The reference lists of the previously selected articles were then examined by hand. Only studies focusing on clinical outcomes of human patients who had undergone augmented rotator cuff repair were selected. We then evaluated the methodological quality of each article using the Coleman methodology score (CMS), a 10 criteria scoring list assessing the methodological quality of the selected studies (CMS). AREAS OF AGREEMENT: Thirty-two articles were included in the present review. Two were retrospective studies, and 30 were prospective. Biologic, synthetic and cellular devices were used in 24, 7 and 1 studies, respectively. The mean modified Coleman methodology score was 64.0. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: Heterogeneity of the clinical outcome scores makes it difficult to compare different studies. GROWING POINTS: None of the augmentation devices available is without problems, and each one presents intrinsic weaknesses. There is no dramatic increase in clinical and functional assessment after augmented procedures, especially if compared with control groups. RESEARCH: More and better scientific evidence is necessary to use augmentation of rotator cuff repairs in routine clinical practice.I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
