Comparing clinical and patient reported outcomes of suture anchor and transosseous repairs of quadriceps tendon rupture

Elkin, Daniel M; Reilly, Mark C.; Sirkin, Michael; Adams, Mark; Kutzarov, Kamen

doi:10.1016/j.jajs.2019.06.001

Cited by 2 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Boudissa et al 3 reported a 97% return of full ROM, a Lysholm score of 94, and a 97% return to previous activity in a group of 102 patients with a mean age of 55 years. These results are similar to those stated by O’Shea et al 21 (return to prior activity, 95%; functional score, 22.9/25; ROM, 0°-116°; 1 extensor lag), West et al 36 (Lysholm, 92; return to prior activity, 100%; ROM, 120°), and Brossard et al 4 (Lysholm, 92; ROM, 128°; return to work, 100%), while Elkin et al 9 cited slightly lower satisfaction scores: 67% in SA and 88% in TO cases, with respective Lysholm scores of 63 and 72.8 and a slightly higher rate of rerupture (12%). Mille et al 18 found overall satisfaction to be 82%, with 36.4% of patients satisfied and 45.4% very satisfied.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Evidence for SA fixation as a noninferior treatment continues to grow, mostly from small retrospective and prospective studies. 4,8,9,24 To date, a single biomechanical study has shown evidence of better ultimate failure loads and less gap formation with the SA technique as compared with the TO technique, but this has not translated into a measured clinical difference in outcomes in QTR. 23 Recent level 3 evidence regarding patellar tendon ruptures did display a lower rerupture rate in patients with repair using an SA versus TO technique.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Survey of Treatment Trends for Acute Quadriceps Tendon Ruptures Among North American Surgeons

Matthies

Paul

Dwyer

et al. 2022

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: To date, little clinical evidence exists to support a specific surgical technique or postoperative rehabilitation protocol for quadriceps tendon ruptures. With a lack of evidence-based superiority, assessment of clinical practices and surgeon preferences is pertinent. Purpose: To describe the current surgical technique and rehabilitation preferences among members of the Canadian Orthopaedic Association and American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine pertaining to acute quadriceps tendon rupture. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: Orthopaedic staff members of the Canadian Orthopaedic Association and American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine were invited to complete an internet-based survey composed of 26 questions assessing current trends in the management and rehabilitation of acute quadriceps tendon rupture. Survey questions were developed after a thorough review of current literature. Survey responses were analyzed and reported using descriptive statistics (absolute values, frequencies, and percentages) where appropriate. Statistical comparisons and contrasts between Canadian and American surgeons were made using chi-square analyses and Student t tests. Results: A total of 264 surgeons participated in the survey (136 Canadians; 128 Americans). Canadian surgeons were more likely to obtain a preoperative ultrasound as compared with Americans (43.0% vs 6.7%; P < .00001), while American respondents were more likely to obtain magnetic resonance imaging scans (65.8% vs 10.2%; P < .00001). The transosseous drill hole technique was the most commonly utilized (70.2%); the suture anchor technique was used 20.6% of the time. Canadian respondents trended toward a higher use of transosseous tunnels; however, this was not statistically significant (75.8% vs 64.2%; P = .068). American respondents were more likely to utilize suture anchors (27.5% vs 14.1%; P = .0096). Most respondents advanced range of motion goals stepwise in 2-week intervals of 30° (Canadians, 54.0% vs Americans, 58.5%; P = .3091); timing of range of motion initiation varied. Conclusion: Among North American surgeons who responded to this study, the transosseous technique was the most commonly used, and range of motion was generally advanced in a 2-week stepwise fashion. We found several differences in practice between Canadian and American respondents, including the type of preoperative imaging and the frequency of using the suture anchor technique.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Survey of Treatment Trends for Acute Quadriceps Tendon Ruptures Among North American Surgeons

Matthies

Paul

Dwyer

et al. 2022

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ultimately upon full-text review, there were 24 studies suitable for qualitative analysis (18 clinical, 6 biomechanical), with 4 biomechanical studies for quantitative analysis. 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The studies of both Elkin et al. 10 and Plesser et al. 4 were both comparative with results for transosseous and suture anchor repair.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Similar Outcomes Are Found Between Quadriceps Tendon Repair With Transosseous Tunnels and Suture Anchors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Coladonato,

Perez,

Sonnier

et al. 2023

Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparing clinical and patient reported outcomes of suture anchor and transosseous repairs of quadriceps tendon rupture

Cited by 2 publications

References 21 publications

A Survey of Treatment Trends for Acute Quadriceps Tendon Ruptures Among North American Surgeons

A Survey of Treatment Trends for Acute Quadriceps Tendon Ruptures Among North American Surgeons

Similar Outcomes Are Found Between Quadriceps Tendon Repair With Transosseous Tunnels and Suture Anchors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About