Meta-Analysis
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2023.
World J Orthop. Nov 18, 2023; 14(11): 813-826
Published online Nov 18, 2023. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v14.i11.813
Table 3 Overview of included clinical studies
Ref.
Country
Journal
Level of evidence, study type
Groups
No. of shoulder in group
Male:female sex
Age, yr
Follow-up, mo
Outcomes
Barth et al[37], 2020FranceAm J Sports Med3, retrospective studyDR vs TOE with absorbable patch reinforcement vs SCR with LHBT autograft28 vs 30 vs 2415:13 vs 19:11 vs 16:863 ± 9 (48-83) vs 59 ± 7.6 (45-71) vs 60 ± 7 (47-81)25 ± 2 (24-29) vs 27 ± 5 (24-36) vs 25 ± 2 (24-29)ASES score, VAS score, constant score, range of motion, simple shoulder test, subjective shoulder value, muscle strength, retear rate
Kocaoglu et al[34], 2020TurkeyOrthop J Sports Med3, retrospective studySCR with LHBT autograft vs SCR with a tensor fasciae lata autograft14 vs 12N/A64.6 ± 8.4 vs 62.5 ± 6.528 vs 32ASES score, VAS score, QuickDASH, range of motion, AHD, retear rate
Rhee et al[33], 2021KoreaArthroscopy3, retrospective studyARCR + BR vs ARCR 59 vs 5232:27 vs 29:2363.7 ± 6.5 vs 62.8 ± 6.915.1 ± 3.4 vs 25.1 ± 8.7ASES score, VAS score, constant score, UCLA score, range of motion, muscle strength, AHD, retear rate
Chiang et al[36], 2021China (Taiwan)Arthroscopy3, retrospective studyARCR and SCR with LHBT autograft vs ARCR and tenotomy of LHBT performed at the insertion site18 vs 227:11 vs 6:16 62.3 ± 7.5 vs 62.2 ± 6.126.6 ± 3.9 (24-38) vs 31.9 ± 6.4 (26-45)ASES score, VAS score, UCLA score, rang of motion, AHD, retear rate
Kawashima et al[35], 2022JapanArthroscopy3, retrospective studypartial repair vs SCR with LHBT transposition10 vs 126:4 vs 7:571.9 ± 7.5 vs 67.8 ± 2.0 37.2 (24-72) vs 24.8 (24-30)ASES score, UCLA score, rang of motion, AHD, retear rate