Publication: Comparison of surgical outcomes between rotator cuff repair with and without rotator interval capsular release for rotator cuff tears to prevent and improve postoperative stiffness: a meta-analysis
Issued Date
2020-01-01
Resource Type
ISSN
14321068
16338065
16338065
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-85085332337
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology. (2020)
Suggested Citation
Alisara Arirachakaran, Kornkit Chaijenkij, Janisa Andrea Maljadi, Jatupon Kongtharvonskul Comparison of surgical outcomes between rotator cuff repair with and without rotator interval capsular release for rotator cuff tears to prevent and improve postoperative stiffness: a meta-analysis. European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology. (2020). doi:10.1007/s00590-020-02695-2 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/56311
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Comparison of surgical outcomes between rotator cuff repair with and without rotator interval capsular release for rotator cuff tears to prevent and improve postoperative stiffness: a meta-analysis
Abstract
© 2020, Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature. Background: A common complication of rotator cuff (RC) repair is a postoperative stiffness. Postoperative stiffness may develop and lead to inferior functional outcomes. Rotator cuff repair with additional rotator interval (RI) capsular release can be done to prevent postoperative stiffness in rotator cuff tears. However, routine rotator interval capsular release in rotator cuff repair is controversial. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the postoperative outcomes between RC repair with and without RI capsular release for RC tears with and without concomitant stiffness. Method: We searched all comparative studies that compared postoperative outcomes (VAS, CS, ASES, complications and ROM at 3, 6 and 12 months) of RC repair with and without RI capsular release for RC tears with and without concomitant stiffness from PubMed and Scopus databases from inception to the February 1, 2020. Results: Seven of 255 studies (six comparative studies and one RCT) (N = 803 patients) were eligible; 2 and 5 studies were included in the pooling of RC repair and RI release without concomitant stiffness and stiffness, respectively; 2, 6, 3, 6, 3, 5, 7, 7, and 7 studies were included in pooling of VAS, CS, ASES at 6 and 12 months and range of motion (internal, external rotation and forward flexion) at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively. The UMD of VAS, CS and ASES scores at 6- and 12-month follow-up for the RC repair and RI release group was 0.48 (95% CI: 0.05, 0.90), 0.93 (−1.70, 3.56), −2.27 (−5.30, 0.76), −0.04 (−0.24, 0.15), 1.66 (0.77, 2.55) and 1.58 (0.21, 2.96) scores when compared to RC repair alone with and without concomitant stiffness. In terms of ROM, forward flexion for the RC repair and RI release group was −4.60 (−10.61, 1.41), −7.11 (−15.47, 1.25) and −0.70 (−2.51, −1.11) degrees at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively, when compared to RC repair alone. For external rotation, RC repair and RI release were −0.12 (−8.27, 8.03), −3.98 (−12.09, 4.14) and −2.65 (−5.35, 0.04) degrees at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively, when compared to RC repair alone. For internal rotation in RC repair and RI release, the values were −1.22 (−1.97, − 0.48), −1.01 (−1.79, −0.23) and −0.19 (−1.13, 0.74) degrees at 3, 6 and 12 months, respectively, when compared to RC repair alone. There were no differences with a RR of 0.92 (0.46, 1.84) between the two groups in terms of complications. After subgroup analysis, RC repair with RI release had no clinically significant differences for pain, function and ROM when compared to RC repair alone in RC tear patients with and without preoperative stiffness. Conclusions: RC repair with RI release in patients with and without preoperative stiffness had no statistically significant differences for pain, function (CS and ASES) and range of motion (FF, ER and IR) when compared to RC repair alone in RC injury patients. Level of Evidence: II.