• J Shoulder Elbow Surg · Mar 2018

    Review Meta Analysis

    Operative versus nonoperative treatment for the management of full-thickness rotator cuff tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

    • Christine C Piper, Alice J Hughes, Yan Ma, Haijun Wang, and Andrew S Neviaser.
    • Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, The George Washington University Hospital Medical Faculty Associates, Washington, DC, USA. Electronic address: pipercc@gmail.com.
    • J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2018 Mar 1; 27 (3): 572-576.

    BackgroundRotator cuff disease is the most common pathology of the shoulder, responsible for approximately 70% of clinic visits for shoulder pain. However, no consensus exists on the optimal treatment. The aim of this study was to analyze level I and II research comparing operative versus nonoperative management of full-thickness rotator cuff tears.MethodsA literature search was performed, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, to identify level I and II studies comparing operative versus nonoperative treatment of rotator cuff tears. Two independent researchers reviewed a total of 1013 articles. Three studies qualified for inclusion. These included 269 patients with 1-year follow-up. The mean age ranged from 59 to 65 years. Clinical outcome measures included the Constant score and visual analog scale (VAS) score for pain. Meta-analysis, using both fixed- and random-effects models, was performed on pooled results to determine overall significance.ResultsStatistically significant differences favoring surgery were found in both Constant and VAS scores after 1 year, with mean differences of 5.64 (95% confidence interval, 2.06 to 9.21; P = .002) and -1.08 (95% confidence interval, -1.56 to -0.59; P < .0001), respectively.ConclusionThere was a statistically significant improvement in outcomes for patients managed operatively compared with those managed nonoperatively. The differences in both Constant and VAS scores were small and did not meet the minimal difference considered clinically significant. Larger studies with longer follow-up are required to determine whether clinical differences between these treatments become evident over time.Copyright © 2017 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.