Comparison of efficacy of different suture techniques under arthroscopy in rotator cuff injury
10.3760/cma.j.cn101721-20240411-00119
- VernacularTitle:关节镜下不同缝合手法在肩袖损伤中的疗效比较
- Author:
Haoran WU
1
;
Shiming FENG
;
Jian NA
Author Information
1. 徐州医科大学徐州临床学院 江苏省徐州市中心医院骨关节外科，徐州 221000
- Keywords:
Rotator cuff injury;
Shoulder joint;
Rotator cuff tear;
Suture technique
- From:
Clinical Medicine of China
2024;40(5):339-344
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the efficacy of different suture techniques under arthroscopy in rotator cuff injury.Methods:A retrospective analysis was performed on clinical data of 117 patients who received arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery from August 2020 to February 2023 in Department of Bone and Joint Surgery, Xuzhou Central Hospital, Jiangsu Province. According to different suture techniques, they were divided into single-row group (56 cases, single-row suture method) and double-row group (61 cases, double-row suture method). The perioperative indicators, surgical complications, shoulder range of motion, pain score (visual analogue scale, VAS), shoulder joint score (Constant-Murley score, CMS) and re-tear rate were compared between the two groups. Chi-square test was used for between-group comparison of enumeration data. Quantitative data that conforms to a normal distribution were represented as xˉ±s, and t-test or one-way ANOVA were used. LSD-t test was used for pairwise comparisons.Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to compare the range of motion, pain score, and CMS score of the shoulder joint before and after treatment. Results:The surgical time in single-row group (78.58±17.25) min was shorter than that in double-row group (88.14±18.51)min, and the difference was statistically significant ( t=2.88, P=0.005). After surgery, the ranges of motions of flexion, abduction and inward rotation of the body side of the two groups were increased gradually, and the ranges of motions in double-row group (anterior flexion: (89.67±6.93)° at 6 months postoperatively; (135.18±12.52)° at 12 months postoperatively), (abduction: (122.52±7.32)° at 6 months postoperatively; (160.87±8.31)° at 12 months postoperatively), (lateral internal rotation:(73.35±4.45)° at 6 months postoperatively; (80.82±6.27)° at 12 months postoperatively) were higher than those in single-row group (anterior flexion: (82.01±6.35)° at 6 months postoperatively; (125.21±10.41)° at 12 months postoperatively), (abduction: (115.23±6.84)° at 6 months postoperatively; (151.41±7.54)° at 12 months postoperatively), (lateral internal rotation: (68.32±4.21)° at 6 months postoperatively; (75.32±5.12)° at 12 months postoperatively), the differences were statistically significant (flexion: 6 months after surgery, t=6.37, 12 months after surgery, t=4.66; abduction: 6 months after surgery, t=5.68, 12 months after surgery, t=6.43; inward rotation: 6 months after surgery, t=6.41, 12 months after surgery, t=5.17; all P<0.001). The VAS score in the two groups was decreased significantly after surgery while the CMS was increased significantly, and there were statistically significant differences in double-row group (VAS: (3.53±0.74) points at 3 months postoperatively; (2.76±0.54) points at 6 months postoperatively; (1.87±0.38) points at 12 months postoperatively), (CMS: (66.06±5.52) points at 3 months postoperatively; (74.17±4.44) points at 6 months postoperatively; (83.87±4.38) points at 12 months postoperatively) at different time points after surgery compared to single-row group (VAS: (4.02±0.80) points at 3 months postoperatively; (2.99±0.58) points at 6 months postoperatively; (2.25±0.41) points at 12 months postoperatively), (CMS: (63.21±5.95) points at 3 months postoperatively; (71.69±4.63) points at 6 months postoperatively; (80.25±3.25) points at 12 months postoperatively), the differences were statistically significant (VAS: 3 months after surgery, t=3.44, 6 months after surgery, t=2.22, 12 months after surgery, t=5.20 ; CMS: 3 months after surgery, t=2.69, 6 months after surgery, t=2.96, 12 months after surgery, t=5.04; P values were <0.001, 0.028, <0.001,0.008, 0.004, and <0.001, respectively). The re-tear rate was significantly lower in double-row group (3.28%，2/61) than that in single-row group (14.29%，8/56), but there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (adjusted χ2=3.23, P=0.070). Conclusion:Rotator cuff surgery can effectively restore shoulder function in patients with rotator cuff injury. Single-row suture method has simpler operation and shorter surgical time, but double-row suture method has a better fixation effect and is more conducive to prognosis.
