A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Graft Utilization in the Augmentation of Large-to-Massive Rotator Cuff Repairs: A Systematic Review. | LitMetric

Background: Current treatment options for symptomatic large-to-massive rotator cuff tears can reduce pain, but failure rates remain high. Surgeons have incorporated synthetic and biologic grafts to augment these repairs, with promising results. Multiple reviews exist that summarize these products; however, no systematic review has investigated the grafts' ability to maintain structural integrity after augmentation of large-to-massive rotator cuff repairs.

Purpose: To systematically review and evaluate the effectiveness of grafts in the augmentation of large-to-massive rotator cuff repairs.

Study Design: Systematic review.

Methods: A comprehensive search of 4 reputable databases was completed. Inclusion criteria were (1) large-to-massive rotator cuff tear, (2) graft augmentation of primary repairs ± primary repair control group, and (3) minimum clinical and radiologic follow-up of 12 months. Two reviewers screened the titles, abstracts, and full articles and extracted the data from eligible studies. Results were summarized into evidence tables stratified by graft origin and level of evidence.

Results: Ten studies fit the inclusion criteria. Allograft augmentation was functionally and structurally superior to primary repair controls, with intact repairs in 85% versus 40% of patients (P < .01). This was supported by observational study data. Xenograft augmentation failed to demonstrate superiority to primary repair controls, with worse structural healing rates (27% vs 60%; P =.11). Both comparative studies supported this finding. There have also been many reports of inflammatory reactions with xenograft use. Polypropylene patches are associated with improved structural (83% vs 59% and 49%; P < .01) and functional outcomes when compared with controls and xenograft augmentation; however, randomized data are lacking.

Conclusion: Augmentation of large-to-massive rotator cuff repairs with human dermal allografts is associated with superior functional and structural outcome when compared with conventional primary repair. Xenograft augmentation failed to demonstrate a statistically significant difference and may be associated with worse rerupture rates and occasional severe inflammatory reactions. Polypropylene patches have initial promising results. Research in this field is limited; future researchers should continue to develop prospective, randomized controlled trials to establish clear recommendations.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0363546515624463DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

large-to-massive rotator
24
rotator cuff
24
augmentation large-to-massive
16
primary repair
16
xenograft augmentation
12
augmentation
9
cuff repairs
8
systematic review
8
inclusion criteria
8
repair controls
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!