Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBoksh, Khalis
dc.contributor.authorHaque, Aziz
dc.contributor.authorSharma, Ashwini
dc.contributor.authorDivall, Pip
dc.contributor.authorSingh, Harvinder
dc.date.accessioned2021-09-07T16:05:20Z
dc.date.available2021-09-07T16:05:20Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.identifier.citationBoksh K, Haque A, Sharma A, Divall P, Singh H. Use of Suture Tapes Versus Conventional Sutures for Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repairs: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2021 Mar 19:363546521998318.en_US
dc.identifier.other10.1177/0363546521998318
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12904/14867
dc.description.abstractBackground: Various suture materials are available for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. More recently, suture tapes have become popular as they are perceived to be easier to use with less soft tissue irritation. However, little is known about their biomechanical and clinical properties compared with conventional sutures in rotator cuff repairs. Purpose: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on whether suture tapes are biomechanically superior to conventional sutures in arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs and whether this translates to superior functional outcomes and a lower incidence of retears. Study design: Meta-analysis. Methods: The Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, PubMed, Medline, and Embase were used to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) criteria with the following search terms: (rotator cuff repair OR arthroscopic rotator cuff repair) AND ("tape" OR "wire" OR "cord" OR "suture"). Data pertaining to certain biomechanical properties (contact area, contact pressure, gap formation, load to failure, and stiffness), retears, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were extracted. The pooled outcome data were analyzed by random- and fixed-effects models. Results: After abstract and full-text screening, 7 biomechanical and 6 clinical studies were included. All biomechanical studies were on animals, with 91 suture tapes and 91 conventional sutures compared. Suture tapes had higher contact pressure (mean difference [MD], 0.04 MPa; 95% CI, 0.01-0.08; P = .02), higher load to failure (MD, 52.62 N; 95% CI, 27.34-77.90; P < .0001), greater stiffness (MD, 4.47 N/mm; 95% CI, 0.57-8.38; P = .02), and smaller gap formation (MD, -0.30 mm; 95% CI, -0.45 to -0.15; P < .0001) compared with conventional sutures. From the clinical analysis of the 681 rotator cuff repairs treated with a suture tape (n = 380) or conventional suture (n = 301), there were no differences in retear rates between the groups (16% vs 20% suture tape and wire, respectively; P = .26) at a mean of 11.2 months. Qualitatively, there were no differences in PROMs between the groups at a mean of 36.8 months. Conclusion: Although biomechanically superior, suture tapes showed similar retear rates and postoperative function to conventional sutures. However, higher-quality clinical studies are required to investigate whether there are no true differences.
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.subjectSystematic Reviewen_US
dc.subjectRotator cuffen_US
dc.subjectSuturesen_US
dc.subjectShoulderen_US
dc.titleUse of Suture Tapes Versus Conventional Sutures for Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repairs: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysisen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
rioxxterms.funderDefault funderen_US
rioxxterms.identifier.projectDefault projecten_US
rioxxterms.versionNAen_US
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1177/0363546521998318en_US
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_US
refterms.panelUnspecifieden_US
html.description.abstractBackground: Various suture materials are available for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. More recently, suture tapes have become popular as they are perceived to be easier to use with less soft tissue irritation. However, little is known about their biomechanical and clinical properties compared with conventional sutures in rotator cuff repairs. Purpose: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis on whether suture tapes are biomechanically superior to conventional sutures in arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs and whether this translates to superior functional outcomes and a lower incidence of retears. Study design: Meta-analysis. Methods: The Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, PubMed, Medline, and Embase were used to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) criteria with the following search terms: (rotator cuff repair OR arthroscopic rotator cuff repair) AND ("tape" OR "wire" OR "cord" OR "suture"). Data pertaining to certain biomechanical properties (contact area, contact pressure, gap formation, load to failure, and stiffness), retears, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were extracted. The pooled outcome data were analyzed by random- and fixed-effects models. Results: After abstract and full-text screening, 7 biomechanical and 6 clinical studies were included. All biomechanical studies were on animals, with 91 suture tapes and 91 conventional sutures compared. Suture tapes had higher contact pressure (mean difference [MD], 0.04 MPa; 95% CI, 0.01-0.08; P = .02), higher load to failure (MD, 52.62 N; 95% CI, 27.34-77.90; P < .0001), greater stiffness (MD, 4.47 N/mm; 95% CI, 0.57-8.38; P = .02), and smaller gap formation (MD, -0.30 mm; 95% CI, -0.45 to -0.15; P < .0001) compared with conventional sutures. From the clinical analysis of the 681 rotator cuff repairs treated with a suture tape (n = 380) or conventional suture (n = 301), there were no differences in retear rates between the groups (16% vs 20% suture tape and wire, respectively; P = .26) at a mean of 11.2 months. Qualitatively, there were no differences in PROMs between the groups at a mean of 36.8 months. Conclusion: Although biomechanically superior, suture tapes showed similar retear rates and postoperative function to conventional sutures. However, higher-quality clinical studies are required to investigate whether there are no true differences.en_US
rioxxterms.funder.project94a427429a5bcfef7dd04c33360d80cden_US


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record