COMPARISON OF SINGLE-ROW VERSUS DOUBLE-ROW REPAIR IN THE SURGICAL MANAGEMENT OF ACHILLES INSERTIONAL TENDINOPATHY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Approximately 6% of the general population will report Achilles tendon pain during their lifetime, and one third of these patients will have insertional Achilles tendinopathy (IAT). For patients who fail conservative treatment, surgical debridement and reattachment is performed. Repair of the Achilles tendon can occur through various techniques, including a single row (SR) repair or a double row (DR) repair. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine if there are significant differences or advantages of double row repairs over single row repairs in terms of the biomechanical and clinical outcomes. An electronic search of the EMBASE and PubMed databases was performed for all studies related to surgical treatment of IAT. This included both biomechanical and clinical studies. For clinical studies where patients were not diagnosed with IAT, underwent surgery for repair of Achilles tendon ruptures, or included additional procedures such as a concomitant flexor hallicus longus transfer for repair of IAT, they were excluded. Eligible studies were independently screened by two reviewers. A risk of bias assessment was conducted using the Cochrane Robins-I and RoB 2 tools. A total of 23 studies were included, four of which were biomechanical studies and 19 were clinical studies. Several studies that performed a biomechanical comparison found that there was a significant advantage to using double row fixation with respect to load at yield (198.7 N vs 354.7 N, p = 0.01), peak load (212 N vs. 433.9 N, p = 0.042), and ultimate failure load (344.5 N vs 462.5 N, p = 0.064). There was no significant difference between double row and single row repair with respect to load at failure. Significant heterogeneity of the studies did not allow for a statistical comparison of the clinical outcomes between double row repairs versus single row repairs. Although the biomechanical studies favour double row repair for IAT, the data available in the current literature on the clinical outcomes are not sufficient to determine if there is a clinical advantage of double row repairs. Larger, prospective randomized trials utilizing validated outcome measures are needed to further elucidate whether the biomechanical advantages associated with double row repair also translate into improved patient-reported outcomes.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».