Dataset Information

Biomechanical Testing of Suture Anchor Versus Transosseous Tunnel Technique for Quadriceps Tendon Repair Yields Similar Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To systematically review the literature to evaluate the biomechanical properties of the suture anchor (SA) versus transosseous tunnel (TO) techniques for quadriceps tendon (QT) repair.

Methods

A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase using PRISMA guidelines to identify studies that evaluated the biomechanical properties of SA and TO techniques for repair of a ruptured QT. The search phrase used was "quadriceps tendon repair biomechanics". Evaluated properties included ultimate load to failure (N), displacement (mm), stiffness (N/mm), and mode of failure.

Results

Five studies met inclusion criteria, including a total of 72 specimens undergoing QT repair via the SA technique and 42 via the TO technique. Three of 4 studies found QTs repaired with SA to have significantly less elongation upon initial cyclic loading when compared to QTs repaired with the TO technique (P < .05). Three of 5 studies found QTs repaired with SA to have significantly less elongation upon final cyclic loading when compared to QTs repaired with the TO technique (P < .05). The pooled analysis from 4 studies reporting on initial displacement showed a statistically significant difference in favor of the SA group compared to the TO group (P = .03). The pooled analysis from studies reporting on secondary displacement and ultimate load to failure showed no significant difference between the SA and TO groups (P > .05). The most common mode of failure in both groups was suture slippage.

Conclusion

On the basis of the included cadaveric studies, QTs repaired via the SA technique have less initial displacement upon cyclic testing when compared to QTs repaired via the TO technique. However, final displacement and ultimate load to failure outcomes did not reveal differences between the two fixation strategies. Knot slippage remains a common failure method for both strategies.

SUBMITTER: Belk JW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8689238 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCurrently, there were two major surgical methods for arthroscopic triangular fibrocartilage complex (TFCC) foveal repair: suture anchor (SA) and transosseous suture (TOS). The purpose of this systematic review is to examine the relevant outcome improvement and safety of SA and TOS technique.MethodsLiterature review of electronic databases for studies investigating the effects of SA and TOS in patients undergoing arthroscopic TFCC foveal repair was performed. We compared the pre-operative and postoperative functional outcomes, clinical outcomes [pain, range of motion (ROM) and grip strength], and complications of two methods. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was used to determine clinically meaningful improvement.ResultsThere were 1263 distinct studies identified, with 26 (904 patients) meeting the inclusion criteria. The mean age of participants ranged from 21.4 to 41 years, and the mean follow-up time ranged from 6 to 106 months. Both SA and TOS groups reported significant improvement in the modified mayo wrist score, the disabilities of the arm, shoulder, and hand (DASH) score, quick DASH score, patient-reported wrist evaluation (PRWE) score, and the visual analog scale (VAS) score. According to MCID, all the studies from both groups reporting DASH, quick DASH, PRWE and VAS score achieved clinically meaningful improvement. (MCID: 10 for DASH, 14 for quick DASH, 14 for PRWE and 1.6-18 for VAS). The ROM changes in both groups varied from improvement to deterioration. Grip strength improved in both SA and TOS group. Most complications were self-limited. The reoperation rates in SA and TOS ranged from 0 to 20% and 0 to 27.3%, respectively.ConclusionsBoth SA and TOS technique for arthroscopic TFCC foveal repair could achieve improvement in postoperative functional outcomes, pain, and grip strength with low reoperation rate. However, the ROM improvement was still inconclusive.Level of evidence ivSystematic review of level III and IV studies.