2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Retear rates after rotator cuff surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Rotator cuff retear (RCR) is one of the main postoperative drawbacks. RCR can be considered a multifactorial issue, which causes are related either to biological than biomechanical factors. The aim of this study was to define the incidence of RCR after surgical treatment at different time points and to identify the main factors influencing the postoperative rotator cuff (RC) healing.

          Methods

          A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following the PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search of the literature was carried out in July 2020, using PubMed and Cochrane Library databases. Only level 1 and 2 clinical evidence studies were included. Studies were included if patients with preoperative repairable full-thickness RC tears were treated surgically, and if studies reported postoperative RCR confirmed by imaging diagnostic. The association between timing of retear and follow-up time points were investigated using an inverse-variance method of pooling data. A subgroup meta-analysis was performed using the DerSimonian and Laird method for the estimation of the between-study variance, i.e., τ 2. The association between retear rate after surgery and patients’ age, preoperative tear size, fatty infiltration, postoperative rehabilitation protocol, surgical techniques, and RC repairs was determined by expressing the effect measure in terms of odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The Mantel-Haenszel method with 95% CIs was used.

          Results

          Thirty-one articles were included in this study. The percentage of RCR after surgery was 15% at 3 months follow-up, 21% at 3–6 months follow-up, 16% at 6–12 months follow-up, 21% at 12–24 months follow-up, 16% at follow-up longer than 24 months. The main factors influencing RC healing are both patient-related (i.e., age, larger tear size, fatty infiltration) and not patient-related (i.e., postoperative rehabilitation protocol, surgical techniques, and procedures).

          Conclusions

          Postoperative RC healing is influenced by patient-related and non-patient-related factors. Further high-level clinical studies are needed to provide highly relevant clinical results.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-021-04634-6.

          Related collections

          Most cited references95

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

          Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                g.longo@unicampus.it
                arianna.carnevale@unicampus.it
                ilaria.piergentili94@gmail.com
                a.berton@unicampus.it
                v.candela@unicampus.it
                e.schena@unicampus.it
                denaro.cbm@gmail.com
                Journal
                BMC Musculoskelet Disord
                BMC Musculoskelet Disord
                BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2474
                31 August 2021
                31 August 2021
                2021
                : 22
                : 749
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.9657.d, ISNI 0000 0004 1757 5329, Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, , Campus Bio-Medico University, ; Via Álvaro del Portillo, 200, Trigoria, 00128 Rome, Italy
                [2 ]GRID grid.9657.d, ISNI 0000 0004 1757 5329, Unit of Measurements and Biomedical Instrumentation, , Campus Bio-Medico University, ; Via Álvaro del Portillo, 21, 00128 Rome, Italy
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4063-9821
                Article
                4634
                10.1186/s12891-021-04634-6
                8408924
                34465332
                485f2f9e-e5db-4843-bca3-f6d70260b391
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 16 October 2020
                : 10 June 2021
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2021

                Orthopedics
                rotator cuff,rotator cuff tear,rotator cuff retear,risk factors,timing of retear
                Orthopedics
                rotator cuff, rotator cuff tear, rotator cuff retear, risk factors, timing of retear

                Comments

                Comment on this article