Darbandi Azad, Credille Kevin, Darbandi Aria, Hevesi Mario, Dandu Navya, Bodendorfer Blake M, Wang Zachary, Garrigues Grant, Verma Nikhil, Yanke Adam
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.
Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
Arthroscopy. 2025 May;41(5):1649-1666.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2024.06.040. Epub 2024 Jul 8.
To assess the consistency and quality of risk factor reporting for rotator cuff repair (RCR) retear and identify risk factors most frequently associated with retear.
A systematic review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Of the initial 3,158 studies, a total of 31 met the following inclusion criteria: (1) clinical studies regarding RCR failure, (2) arthroscopic procedures involving RCR, (3) reporting of clinical outcomes, (4) publication within the past 5 years, and (5) studies investigating preoperative risk factors for retear. After full-text review, 18 risk factors were analyzed.
The most consistently significant risk factors were acromiohumeral distance (80%), critical shoulder angle (67%), tear size (63%), anterior-posterior dimension (60%), fatty infiltration (FI) (58%), and retraction size (56%). FI was analyzed using different methods among studies, with 63% finding significant results and 50% of all studies performing ordinal analysis. Tear size was inconsistently analyzed quantitatively or qualitatively, with 58% of studies finding significant results and 63% of all studies performing quantitative analysis. Risk factors consistently found to be nonsignificant included age, sex, diabetes mellitus, symptom duration, hand dominance, repair technique, smoking, and body mass index.
Tear size, FI, and retraction size were found to be significant risk factors in most of the included studies evaluating rotator cuff retear. Risk factors less likely reported as predictive included repair technique, age, sex, diabetes mellitus, symptom duration, hand dominance, repair technique, smoking, and body mass index. Risk factors that require further investigation include critical shoulder angle, acromiohumeral distance, and anterior-posterior tear dimension.
Level III, systematic review of Level III-IV studies.
评估肩袖修复术(RCR)再撕裂危险因素报告的一致性和质量,并确定与再撕裂最常相关的危险因素。
根据系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南进行系统评价。在最初的3158项研究中,共有31项符合以下纳入标准:(1)关于RCR失败的临床研究;(2)涉及RCR的关节镜手术;(3)临床结果报告;(4)过去5年内发表的研究;(5)调查再撕裂术前危险因素的研究。在全文审查后,分析了18个危险因素。
最一致显著的危险因素是肩峰下间隙(80%)、关键肩角(67%)、撕裂大小(63%)、前后径(60%)、脂肪浸润(FI)(58%)和回缩大小(56%)。各研究中对FI采用了不同的分析方法,63%的研究得出显著结果,所有研究中有50%进行了有序分析。撕裂大小的定量或定性分析不一致,58%的研究得出显著结果,所有研究中有63%进行了定量分析。一直被发现无显著意义的危险因素包括年龄、性别、糖尿病、症状持续时间、利手、修复技术、吸烟和体重指数。
在大多数纳入的评估肩袖再撕裂的研究中,撕裂大小、FI和回缩大小是显著的危险因素。作为预测因素报道可能性较小的危险因素包括修复技术、年龄、性别、糖尿病、症状持续时间、利手、修复技术、吸烟和体重指数。需要进一步研究的危险因素包括关键肩角、肩峰下间隙和前后撕裂径。
III级,III-IV级研究的系统评价。