Suture Button Fixation in Latarjet Has Similar Load to Failure and Clinical Outcomes but Lower Bone Resorption Compared With Screw Fixation: A Systematic Review
To compare the 2 Latarjet fixation techniques-screw fixation (SF) versus suture button (SB) -for clinical, biomechanical, and radiologic outcomes. A systematic review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic and Meta-Analyses guidelines using MEDLINE and Embase datab...
Uloženo v:
| Vydáno v: | Arthroscopy Ročník 40; číslo 5; s. 1637 |
|---|---|
| Hlavní autoři: | , , , , , , |
| Médium: | Journal Article |
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Vydáno: |
United States
01.05.2024
|
| Témata: | |
| ISSN: | 1526-3231, 1526-3231 |
| On-line přístup: | Zjistit podrobnosti o přístupu |
| Tagy: |
Přidat tag
Žádné tagy, Buďte první, kdo vytvoří štítek k tomuto záznamu!
|
| Abstract | To compare the 2 Latarjet fixation techniques-screw fixation (SF) versus suture button (SB) -for clinical, biomechanical, and radiologic outcomes.
A systematic review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic and Meta-Analyses guidelines using MEDLINE and Embase databases and was prospectively registered on PROSPERO. Only comparative clinical and biomechanical studies of Latarjet with SF and SB were included. Studies were appraised using the Methodical Index for Non-Randomised Studies (MINORS) tool.
Eleven studies met eligible criteria: 7 clinical studies (SB, n = 279; SF, n = 845) and 4 biomechanical. In total, 80.9% (SB) and 84.2% (SF) of patients were male. Follow-up ranged from 6 to 63.6 months. The overall recurrent instability rate for SB ranged from 0 to 8.3% and for SF ranged from 0 to 2.75%. Only one study demonstrated a greater recurrent instability rate with SB (P = .02). Overall SB complication rates ranged from 0 to 12.5% and SF ranged from 0 to 27%. Two studies reported greater complications and reoperations with SF related to hardware. Summary forest plots from 4 studies showed no significant difference in Walch Duplay score (mean difference, range -5.00 to 1.20 [95% confidence interval {CI} -12.13 to 8.56], I
inconsistency = 0%), Rowe score (mean difference, range -2.00 to 4.00 [95% CI -7.37 to 7.66], I
inconsistency = 45%), and VAS for pain (mean difference, range -0.10 to 0.60 [95% CI -0.72 to 1.33], I
inconsistency = 0%). There was no statistically significant difference between SB and SF in the postoperative range of motion. Radiologically, there was no significant difference in graft positioning and union at final follow-up, but graft resorption was greater in SF (range 25.2%-47.6%) compared with SB (range 10.1%-18.5%). Biomechanical studies showed no significant difference in maximum load to failure (SB, range 184-266 N vs SF, range 148-288 N).
Clinically, SB fixation demonstrated similar functional outcome and range of motion when compared with SF, with the potential benefit of lower rates of graft resorption and hardware-related complications. Biomechanically there was no difference in maximum load to failure.
Level III, systematic review of Level III and biomechanical studies. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | To compare the 2 Latarjet fixation techniques-screw fixation (SF) versus suture button (SB) -for clinical, biomechanical, and radiologic outcomes.PURPOSETo compare the 2 Latarjet fixation techniques-screw fixation (SF) versus suture button (SB) -for clinical, biomechanical, and radiologic outcomes.A systematic review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic and Meta-Analyses guidelines using MEDLINE and Embase databases and was prospectively registered on PROSPERO. Only comparative clinical and biomechanical studies of Latarjet with SF and SB were included. Studies were appraised using the Methodical Index for Non-Randomised Studies (MINORS) tool.METHODSA systematic review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic and Meta-Analyses guidelines using MEDLINE and Embase databases and was prospectively registered on PROSPERO. Only comparative clinical and biomechanical studies of Latarjet with SF and SB were included. Studies were appraised using the Methodical Index for Non-Randomised Studies (MINORS) tool.Eleven studies met eligible criteria: 7 clinical studies (SB, n = 279; SF, n = 845) and 4 biomechanical. In total, 80.9% (SB) and 84.2% (SF) of patients were male. Follow-up ranged from 6 to 63.6 months. The overall recurrent instability rate for SB ranged from 0 to 8.3% and for SF ranged from 0 to 2.75%. Only one study demonstrated a greater recurrent instability rate with SB (P = .02). Overall SB complication rates ranged from 0 to 12.5% and SF ranged from 0 to 27%. Two studies reported greater complications and reoperations with SF related to hardware. Summary forest plots from 4 studies showed no significant difference in Walch Duplay score (mean difference, range -5.00 to 1.20 [95% confidence interval {CI} -12.13 to 8.56], I2 inconsistency = 0%), Rowe score (mean difference, range -2.00 to 4.00 [95% CI -7.37 to 7.66], I2 inconsistency = 45%), and VAS for pain (mean difference, range -0.10 to 0.60 [95% CI -0.72 to 1.33], I2 inconsistency = 0%). There was no statistically significant difference between SB and SF in the postoperative range of motion. Radiologically, there was no significant difference in graft positioning and union at final follow-up, but graft resorption was greater in SF (range 25.2%-47.6%) compared with SB (range 10.1%-18.5%). Biomechanical studies showed no significant difference in maximum load to failure (SB, range 184-266 N vs SF, range 148-288 N).RESULTSEleven studies met eligible criteria: 7 clinical studies (SB, n = 279; SF, n = 845) and 4 biomechanical. In total, 80.9% (SB) and 84.2% (SF) of patients were male. Follow-up ranged from 6 to 63.6 months. The overall recurrent instability rate for SB ranged from 0 to 8.3% and for SF ranged from 0 to 2.75%. Only one study demonstrated a greater recurrent instability rate with SB (P = .02). Overall SB complication rates ranged from 0 to 12.5% and SF ranged from 0 to 27%. Two studies reported greater complications and reoperations with SF related to hardware. Summary forest plots from 4 studies showed no significant difference in Walch Duplay score (mean difference, range -5.00 to 1.20 [95% confidence interval {CI} -12.13 to 8.56], I2 inconsistency = 0%), Rowe score (mean difference, range -2.00 to 4.00 [95% CI -7.37 to 7.66], I2 inconsistency = 45%), and VAS for pain (mean difference, range -0.10 to 0.60 [95% CI -0.72 to 1.33], I2 inconsistency = 0%). There was no statistically significant difference between SB and SF in the postoperative range of motion. Radiologically, there was no significant difference in graft positioning and union at final follow-up, but graft resorption was greater in SF (range 25.2%-47.6%) compared with SB (range 10.1%-18.5%). Biomechanical studies showed no significant difference in maximum load to failure (SB, range 184-266 N vs SF, range 148-288 N).Clinically, SB fixation demonstrated similar functional outcome and range of motion when compared with SF, with the potential benefit of lower rates of graft resorption and hardware-related complications. Biomechanically there was no difference in maximum load to failure.CONCLUSIONSClinically, SB fixation demonstrated similar functional outcome and range of motion when compared with SF, with the potential benefit of lower rates of graft resorption and hardware-related complications. Biomechanically there was no difference in maximum load to failure.Level III, systematic review of Level III and biomechanical studies.LEVEL OF EVIDENCELevel III, systematic review of Level III and biomechanical studies. To compare the 2 Latarjet fixation techniques-screw fixation (SF) versus suture button (SB) -for clinical, biomechanical, and radiologic outcomes. A systematic review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic and Meta-Analyses guidelines using MEDLINE and Embase databases and was prospectively registered on PROSPERO. Only comparative clinical and biomechanical studies of Latarjet with SF and SB were included. Studies were appraised using the Methodical Index for Non-Randomised Studies (MINORS) tool. Eleven studies met eligible criteria: 7 clinical studies (SB, n = 279; SF, n = 845) and 4 biomechanical. In total, 80.9% (SB) and 84.2% (SF) of patients were male. Follow-up ranged from 6 to 63.6 months. The overall recurrent instability rate for SB ranged from 0 to 8.3% and for SF ranged from 0 to 2.75%. Only one study demonstrated a greater recurrent instability rate with SB (P = .02). Overall SB complication rates ranged from 0 to 12.5% and SF ranged from 0 to 27%. Two studies reported greater complications and reoperations with SF related to hardware. Summary forest plots from 4 studies showed no significant difference in Walch Duplay score (mean difference, range -5.00 to 1.20 [95% confidence interval {CI} -12.13 to 8.56], I inconsistency = 0%), Rowe score (mean difference, range -2.00 to 4.00 [95% CI -7.37 to 7.66], I inconsistency = 45%), and VAS for pain (mean difference, range -0.10 to 0.60 [95% CI -0.72 to 1.33], I inconsistency = 0%). There was no statistically significant difference between SB and SF in the postoperative range of motion. Radiologically, there was no significant difference in graft positioning and union at final follow-up, but graft resorption was greater in SF (range 25.2%-47.6%) compared with SB (range 10.1%-18.5%). Biomechanical studies showed no significant difference in maximum load to failure (SB, range 184-266 N vs SF, range 148-288 N). Clinically, SB fixation demonstrated similar functional outcome and range of motion when compared with SF, with the potential benefit of lower rates of graft resorption and hardware-related complications. Biomechanically there was no difference in maximum load to failure. Level III, systematic review of Level III and biomechanical studies. |
| Author | D'Alessandro, Peter Jordan, Robert W Malik, Shahbaz S Hali, Nayeem Z Woodmass, Jarret Laprus, Hubert Tahir, Muaaz |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Nayeem Z surname: Hali fullname: Hali, Nayeem Z email: nzafarhali@gmail.com organization: Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, Worcestershire, United Kingdom. Electronic address: nzafarhali@gmail.com – sequence: 2 givenname: Muaaz surname: Tahir fullname: Tahir, Muaaz organization: The Royal Orthopaedic Hospital, Birmingham, United Kingdom – sequence: 3 givenname: Robert W surname: Jordan fullname: Jordan, Robert W organization: University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom – sequence: 4 givenname: Hubert surname: Laprus fullname: Laprus, Hubert organization: St Luke's Hospital, Bielsko-Biała, Poland – sequence: 5 givenname: Jarret surname: Woodmass fullname: Woodmass, Jarret organization: Pan Am Clinic. Winnipeg, Canada – sequence: 6 givenname: Peter surname: D'Alessandro fullname: D'Alessandro, Peter organization: Orthopaedic Research Foundation of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia; Medical School, Discipline of Surgery, University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia – sequence: 7 givenname: Shahbaz S surname: Malik fullname: Malik, Shahbaz S organization: Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, Worcestershire, United Kingdom |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37890545$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNpNkN1KAzEQhYMo2lbfQGQuvWlNsn-Jd7VYKxQEq3hZsskUU3Y3Ncla-zY-qusvXs2Z4TtnhumT_cY1SMgpoyNGWX6xHikfn70bccqTbjSinO2RHst4Pkx4wvb_6SPSD2FNKU0SkRySo6QQkmZp1iPviza2HuGqjdE1MLVvKtpO2AbmKiq_xggzFWBha1spD3OnDEQHU2WrT59qDEwq21itKrhro3Y1Bijb2JFb9HDVHQ33GJzffOVOXL1RHg082fgMC-1x-7f0Esaw2IWIddfqzvVqcXtMDlaqCnjyUwfkcXr9MJkN53c3t5PxfKjTXBTDQq90Kk2erUoty1xSKVMqsDBSGiZoRjkXacGzkrEcU6MEpUi14oYbWrBM8AE5_87dePfSYojL2gaNVaUadG1YciGSTOS55B169oO2ZY1mufG2Vn63_P0q_wC2334R |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_2106_JBJS_RVW_24_00165 crossref_primary_10_52965_001c_133984 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jor_2024_12_021 crossref_primary_10_1177_23259671251356265 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jse_2024_07_029 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_arthro_2023_11_035 crossref_primary_10_5397_cise_2025_00451 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_otsm_2024_151137 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_arthro_2025_05_013 crossref_primary_10_1177_23259671251321501 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_eats_2023_102899 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_arthro_2025_04_042 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00142_024_00723_5 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_eats_2025_103636 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_xrrt_2025_07_013 crossref_primary_10_2106_JBJS_24_00812 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| Copyright | Crown Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
| Copyright_xml | – notice: Crown Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
| DBID | CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.arthro.2023.10.021 |
| DatabaseName | Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitle | MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE - Academic MEDLINE |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: 7X8 name: MEDLINE - Academic url: https://search.proquest.com/medline sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | no_fulltext_linktorsrc |
| EISSN | 1526-3231 |
| ExternalDocumentID | 37890545 |
| Genre | Systematic Review Journal Article Comparative Study |
| GroupedDBID | --K .1- .FO .GJ 0R~ 1B1 1P~ 1RT 1~5 3O- 4.4 457 4G. 53G 5RE 5VS 7-5 AAEDT AAEDW AALRI AAQFI AAQQT AAQXK AAXUO AAYWO ABLJU ABMAC ABWVN ACRPL ADBBV ADMUD ADNMO AEVXI AFCTW AFJKZ AFRHN AFTJW AGCQF AGQPQ AHHHB AITUG AJUYK ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AMRAJ ASPBG AVWKF AZFZN BELOY C5W CAG CGR COF CUY CVF EBS ECM EFJIC EFKBS EIF EJD F5P FDB FEDTE FGOYB G-2 GBLVA HEE HEK HMK HMO HVGLF HZ~ IHE J1W KOM M28 M31 M41 MO0 N9A NPM NQ- O9- OF~ OR- R2- RIG ROL RPZ SAE SEL SES SEW SJN SSZ UHS UV1 WUQ XH2 Z5R ZXP 7X8 |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c4687-7cfc49d65fbc9b69099408e7d99d180502284725b116e4da800e0ca2d2d071582 |
| IEDL.DBID | 7X8 |
| ISICitedReferencesCount | 14 |
| ISICitedReferencesURI | http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=001239311700010&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| ISSN | 1526-3231 |
| IngestDate | Sun Sep 28 07:58:47 EDT 2025 Mon Jul 21 06:04:31 EDT 2025 |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 5 |
| Language | English |
| License | Crown Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c4687-7cfc49d65fbc9b69099408e7d99d180502284725b116e4da800e0ca2d2d071582 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Undefined-1 ObjectType-Feature-3 ObjectType-Review-4 content type line 23 |
| PMID | 37890545 |
| PQID | 2883586692 |
| PQPubID | 23479 |
| ParticipantIDs | proquest_miscellaneous_2883586692 pubmed_primary_37890545 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2024-05-00 20240501 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2024-05-01 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 05 year: 2024 text: 2024-05-00 |
| PublicationDecade | 2020 |
| PublicationPlace | United States |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: United States |
| PublicationTitle | Arthroscopy |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | Arthroscopy |
| PublicationYear | 2024 |
| References | 38219100 - Arthroscopy. 2024 May;40(5):1655-1657. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2023.11.035. |
| References_xml | – reference: 38219100 - Arthroscopy. 2024 May;40(5):1655-1657. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2023.11.035. |
| SSID | ssj0003383 |
| Score | 2.5014086 |
| SecondaryResourceType | review_article |
| Snippet | To compare the 2 Latarjet fixation techniques-screw fixation (SF) versus suture button (SB) -for clinical, biomechanical, and radiologic outcomes.
A systematic... To compare the 2 Latarjet fixation techniques-screw fixation (SF) versus suture button (SB) -for clinical, biomechanical, and radiologic outcomes.PURPOSETo... |
| SourceID | proquest pubmed |
| SourceType | Aggregation Database Index Database |
| StartPage | 1637 |
| SubjectTerms | Biomechanical Phenomena Bone Resorption Bone Screws Humans Male Suture Anchors Suture Techniques - instrumentation Sutures Treatment Outcome |
| Title | Suture Button Fixation in Latarjet Has Similar Load to Failure and Clinical Outcomes but Lower Bone Resorption Compared With Screw Fixation: A Systematic Review |
| URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37890545 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2883586692 |
| Volume | 40 |
| WOSCitedRecordID | wos001239311700010&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| hasFullText | |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| link | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1Nb9NAEF1R0kMvBURbUj40lbiaxvtlLxdUKqIcQhrJIHKz1rsbxRW1U9sh_Bx-KrO205wqIXHxyZZXu7Ozb3Zm3iPkPZcZxfBfBMoZL2EmbYB2IwKMb4UJtdUj1YlNRLNZvFioeX_hVvdllTuf2DpqWxp_R37pVXFFLKWin9b3gVeN8tnVXkLjgAwYQhlv1dFizxbOOhpOPKJkwBDI7Frn2vouXJlV5dv_KPvg67to-DjIbA-b8bP_HeZzctzDTLjq7OIFeeKKl-RP0hKIgBenLgsY57_bZYG8gKludHXrGpjoGpL8LseAF6alttCUMNa5L14HXVjoeUR_ws2mwRG5GrJNg29uXQWfy8KBzwdUrR-C676-HX7kzQoSxKfbh59-hCtIHlikoUtRnJDv4y_fridBr9AQGC7RO0VmabiyUiwzozIMtJXio9hFVikbxiPhyXV4REUWhtJxqxGdupHR1FKL0EbE9JQ8LXBsrwiEjvIowph2iSEey6KMcSdtyITUNjSCDcnFbsJT3AE-raELV27qdD_lQ3LWrVq67qg6Uub7fBEknv_D16_JERoD76oZ35DBEve_e0sOza8mr6t3rWnhczb_-hdqKNjd |
| linkProvider | ProQuest |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Suture+Button+Fixation+in+Latarjet+Has+Similar+Load+to+Failure+and+Clinical+Outcomes+but+Lower+Bone+Resorption+Compared+With+Screw+Fixation%3A+A+Systematic+Review&rft.jtitle=Arthroscopy&rft.au=Hali%2C+Nayeem+Z&rft.au=Tahir%2C+Muaaz&rft.au=Jordan%2C+Robert+W&rft.au=Laprus%2C+Hubert&rft.date=2024-05-01&rft.issn=1526-3231&rft.eissn=1526-3231&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1637&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.arthro.2023.10.021&rft.externalDBID=NO_FULL_TEXT |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1526-3231&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1526-3231&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1526-3231&client=summon |