scholarly journals Effects of Acupuncture after Rotator Cuff Surgery: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 25-34
Author(s):  
Sang-Jin Lee ◽  
You-Me Ko ◽  
Jung-Sik Park ◽  
Tae-Yong Park ◽  
Jung-Han Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Rotator Cuff ◽  
Rotator Cuff Surgery

scholarly journals Patch augmentation surgery for rotator cuff repair: the PARCS mixed-methods feasibility study

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (13) ◽  
pp. 1-138
Author(s):  
Jonathan A Cook ◽  
Mathew Baldwin ◽  
Cushla Cooper ◽  
Navraj S Nagra ◽  
Joanna C Crocker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Rotator Cuff ◽  
Feasibility Study ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Clinical Evidence ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Patch Use ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Rotator Cuff Surgery

Background A rotator cuff tear is a common, disabling shoulder problem. Symptoms may include pain, weakness, lack of shoulder mobility and sleep disturbance. Many patients require surgery to repair the tear; however, there is a high failure rate. There is a need to improve the outcome of rotator cuff surgery, and the use of patch augmentation (on-lay or bridging) to provide support to the healing process and improve patient outcomes holds promise. Patches have been made using different materials (e.g. human/animal skin or tissue and synthetic materials) and processes (e.g. woven or mesh). Objectives The aim of the Patch Augmented Rotator Cuff Surgery (PARCS) feasibility study was to determine the design of a definitive randomised controlled trial assessing the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a patch to augment surgical repair of the rotator cuff that is both acceptable to stakeholders and feasible. Design A mixed-methods feasibility study of a randomised controlled trial. Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases were searched between April 2006 and August 2018. Methods The project involved six stages: a systematic review of clinical evidence, a survey of the British Elbow and Shoulder Society’s surgical membership, a survey of surgeon triallists, focus groups and interviews with stakeholders, a two-round Delphi study administered via online questionnaires and a 2-day consensus meeting. The various stakeholders (including patients, surgeons and industry representatives) were involved in stages 2–6. Results The systematic review comprised 52 studies; only 15 were comparative and, of these, 11 were observational (search conducted in August 2018). These studies were typically small (median number of participants 26, range 5–152 participants). There was some evidence to support the use of patches, although most comparative studies were at a serious risk of bias. Little to no published clinical evidence was available for a number of patches in clinical use. The membership survey of British Elbow and Shoulder surgeons [105 (21%) responses received] identified a variety of patches in use. Twenty-four surgeons (77%) completed the triallist survey relating to trial design. Four focus groups were conducted, involving 24 stakeholders. Differing views were held on a number of aspects of trial design, including the appropriate patient population (e.g. patient age) to participate. Agreement on the key research questions and the outline of two potential randomised controlled trials were achieved through the Delphi study [29 (67%)] and the consensus meeting that 22 participants attended. Limitations The main limitation was that the findings were influenced by the participants, who are not necessarily representative of the views of the relevant stakeholder groups. Conclusion The need for further clinical studies was clear, particularly given the range and number of different patches available. Future work Randomised comparisons of on-lay patch use for completed rotator cuff repairs and bridging patch use for partial rotator cuff repairs were identified as areas for further research. The value of an observational study to assess safety concerns of patch use was also highlighted. These elements are included in the trial designs proposed in this study. Study registration The systematic review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017057908. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 13. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Non-operative orthobiologic use for rotator cuff disorders and glenohumeral osteoarthritis: A systematic review

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
David M. Robinson ◽  
Christine Eng ◽  
Steven Makovitch ◽  
Joshua B. Rothenberg ◽  
Stephanie DeLuca ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Rotator Cuff ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Platelet Rich Plasma ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Bias Risk ◽  
Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis ◽  
Functional Outcome Measures

BACKGROUND: Shoulder pain from rotator cuff pathology and glenohumeral osteoarthritis is a common entity encountered in musculoskeletal practices. Orthobiologic agents are being increasingly used as a treatment option and understanding their safety and efficacy is necessary. OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the available evidence for orthobiologic use in rotator cuff and glenohumeral pathology. METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken following PRISMA guidelines. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies evaluating non-operative treatment with prolotherapy, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), or medicinal signaling cells (MSCs) for rotator cuff pathology and glenohumeral osteoarthritis were included. Bias risk assessments used were the Cochrane tool and Newcastle-Ottawa score. RESULTS: The search yielded 852 potential articles, of which 20 met the inclusion criteria with a breakdown of 5 prolotherapy, 13 PRP, and 2 MSC. Sixteen studies were RCTs and 4 were cohort studies. Six studies were deemed “low risk of bias or good quality”. Efficacy results were mixed, and no serious adverse events were reported from orthobiologic treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Orthobiologics offer a relatively safe management option with inconclusive evidence for or against its use for rotator cuff pathology. No studies on glenohumeral osteoarthritis met the inclusion criteria. Adoption of standardized preparation reporting and consistent use of functional outcome measures is imperative for future studies to consider.

No difference between tenotomy vs tenodesis for the long head of the biceps tendinopathy in rotator cuff repair: a systematic review

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 89-96
Author(s):  
Nicola Maffulli ◽  
Rocco Papalia ◽  
Guglielmo Torre ◽  
Sebastiano Vasta ◽  
Giuseppe Papalia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Rotator Cuff ◽  
Rotator Cuff Repair ◽  
Long Head ◽  
Cuff Repair

Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound for rotator cuff tears in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2011 ◽  
Vol 66 (11) ◽  
pp. 1036-1048 ◽  
Author(s):  
T.O. Smith ◽  
T. Back ◽  
A.P. Toms ◽  
C.B. Hing
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Rotator Cuff ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Rotator Cuff Tears

Is manual therapy efficacious for the treatment of rotator cuff tendinopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Physiotherapy ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 101 ◽  
pp. e309-e310
Author(s):  
A. Desjardins-Charbonneau ◽  
J.-S. Roy ◽  
C.E. Dionne ◽  
P. Frémont ◽  
J.C. MacDermid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Rotator Cuff ◽  
Manual Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Rotator Cuff Tendinopathy
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document