Background: The incidence of pectoralis major tendon tears is increasing, and repair is generally considered; however, a paucity of comparative data are available to demonstrate the superiority of operative treatment. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of operative and nonoperative treatment of pectoralis major tendon tears. We hypothesized that repair would result in superior outcomes compared with nonoperative treatment. Methods: In accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, a systematic review of the literature was completed by use of MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, Cochrane, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases. We included English-language studies that had a minimum of 6 months of average follow-up and 5 cases per study. The MINORS (Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies) was used to assess the quality of the existing literature. Meta-analysis of pooled mechanisms of injury and outcomes was completed. Pooled effect sizes were calculated from random-effects models. Continuous variables were assessed by use of mixed-model analysis, with the individual study designated as a random effect and the desired treatment for comparison as a fixed effect. Bivariate frequency data were transformed via the Freeman-Tukey log-linear transformation for variance stabilization and then assessed through use of a mixed model with a study level random effect and subsequently back-transformed. Significance was set at P < .05. Results: A total of 23 articles with 664 injuries met the inclusion criteria for comparison. All patients were male, with an average age of 31.48 years; 63.2% of injuries occurred during weight training, and the average follow-up was 37.02 months. Included studies had moderately high methodological quality. Operative treatment was significantly superior to nonoperative treatment, with relative improvements of functional outcome by 23.33% (0.70 improvement by Bak criteria which is scored 1-4; P = .027), full isometric strength 77.07% ( P < .001), isokinetic strength 28.86% ( P < .001) compared with the uninjured arm, cosmesis satisfaction 13.79% ( P = .037), and resting deformity 98.85% ( P < .001). The overall complication rate for operative treatment was 14.21%, including a 3.08% rate of rerupture. Conclusion: Pectoralis major tendon repair resulted in significantly superior outcomes compared with nonoperative treatment, with an associated 14.21% complication rate. Statistically significant improvements were noted in functional outcome, isokinetic strength, isometric strength, cosmesis, and resting deformity.
Background: Repair of torn pectoralis major tendons is generally considered superior to nonoperative management, but there is a paucity of comparative data to demonstrate ideal repair timing and fixation methods. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to compare the outcomes between acute and chronic repair and among the various methods of fixation (transosseous tunnels, cortical buttons, suture anchors, screws with washers, and direct repair). It was hypothesized that acute repair would have superior outcomes and there would be similar outcomes among the various methods of fixation. Study Design: Meta-analysis. Methods: In accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, a systematic review of the literature was completed through MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science databases. English-language studies were included with a minimum of 6 months’ mean follow-up and 5 cases per study. MINORS (Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies) was utilized to assess the quality of the existing literature. Analysis of mechanisms of injury and meta-analysis of pooled outcomes were completed. Pooled effect sizes were calculated from random effects models. Continuous variables were assessed via mixed model analysis, with the individual study designated as a random effect and the desired treatment for comparison as a fixed effect. Bivariate frequency data were transformed through Freeman-Tukey log-linear transformation for variance stabilization and then assessed through a mixed model with a study-level random effect and subsequently back-transformed. Significance was set at P < .05. Results: Twenty articles with 384 injuries met the inclusion criteria for comparison. All patients were male, with 61.9% of injuries occurring during weight training, at a mean age of 31.53 years, and with a mean follow-up of 30.12 months. Included studies scored a mean (SD) 15.53 ± 4.26 (range, 7.0-23.3) by MINORS criteria. Acute repair was significantly superior to chronic repair, with a relative improvement of functional outcome by 0.85 ( P = .004) and satisfaction with cosmesis by 20.50% ( P = .003). There was a trend toward acute repair having a higher proportion of patients who were pain-free (34.47%, P = .064). There were no significant differences among the methods of fixation for repair. Conclusion: Acute repair of pectoralis major tendon tears resulted in significantly superior functional outcomes and cosmesis satisfaction with a trend toward a higher proportion of patients who were pain-free. There were no significant differences among the methods of fixation for repair.
Objectives: The incidence of pectoralis major tendon tears is rising, and repair is generally considered, but there is a paucity of comparative data to demonstrate the superiority of operative treatment. We sought to compare the outcomes of operative and nonoperative treatment of pectoralis major tendon tears. We hypothesized that repair would result in superior outcomes compared to nonoperative treatment. Methods: In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a systematic review of the literature was completed using MEDLINE, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase and Web of Science databases. English-language studies were included with a minimum of 6 months average follow-up and 5 cases per study. Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies was utilized to assess the quality of the existing literature. Meta-analysis of pooled mechanisms of injury and outcomes was completed. Pooled effect-sizes were calculated from random effects models. Continuous variables were assessed using mixed model analysis with the individual study designated as a random effect and the desired treatment for comparison as a fixed effect. Bivariate frequency data was transformed using the Freeman-Tukey log-linear transformation for variance stabilization and then assessed using a mixed model with a study-level random effect and subsequently back-transformed. Significance was set at P<.05. Results: Twenty-three articles with 664 injuries met the inclusion criteria for comparison (Figure 1). All patients were male with 63.2% of injuries occurring during weight training, with an average age of 31.48 years and follow-up of 37.02 months. Included studies had moderately high methodological quality. Operative treatment was significantly superior to nonoperative treatment with a relative improvement of functional outcome by 0.70 (P=.027), full isometric strength by 77.07% (P<.001), isokinetic strength by 28.86% (P<.001) compared to the uninjured arm, cosmesis satisfaction by 13.79% (P=.037), and resting deformity by 98.85% (P<.001) (Table 1). There was an overall complication rate of 14.21%, including a 3.08% rate of rerupture, for operative treatment. Conclusion: Pectoralis major tendon repair resulted in significantly superior outcomes as compared to nonoperative treatment with an associated 14.21% complication rate. There was a statistically significant improvement in functional outcome, isokinetic strength, isometric strength, cosmesis, and resting deformity. [Figure: see text][Table: see text]
Background: The modified Jobe and docking techniques are the most common techniques used for elbow ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) reconstruction. Previous systematic reviews have suggested that the docking technique results in superior outcomes as compared with the Jobe (figure-of-8) technique. However, these included results from earlier studies in which the flexor-pronator mass (FPM) was detached and an obligatory submuscular ulnar nerve transposition was performed. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to compare the outcomes and return-to-play (RTP) time between the docking and figure-of-8 techniques for UCL reconstruction. We hypothesized that there would be no significant difference in the proportion of excellent outcomes between techniques when the FPM was preserved and no obligatory submuscular ulnar nerve transposition was performed. We also hypothesized that there would be no significant difference in RTP time between techniques. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: This study was performed in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. In the primary analysis, techniques were compared in random effects models by using the restricted maximum likelihood method, with weighted effect sizes calculated as the Freeman-Tukey double-arcsine transformed proportion of excellent outcomes for variance stabilization and with summary effects estimated from the inverse double-arcsine transformation per the harmonic mean of the sample sizes. Mean RTP times for techniques were compared in a separate model. Results: There were 21 eligible articles identified, with results for 1842 UCL reconstructions (n = 320, docking; n = 1466, figure-of-8). Without controlling for the effects of flexor-pronator detachment and submuscular ulnar nerve transposition, a significantly larger proportion of excellent outcomes was observed with docking reconstruction (86.58%; 95% CI, 80.42%-91.85%) than with figure-of-8 reconstruction (76.76%; 95% CI, 69.65%-83.25%; P = .031); however, there was no significant difference between techniques when controlling for FPM preservation or detachment with submuscular nerve transposition ( P = .139). There was no significant difference between techniques in time to return to sports ( P = .729), although no reconstructions with FPM detachment and submuscular ulnar nerve transposition were available for RTP time analysis. Conclusion: There was no significant difference in the proportion of excellent Conway Scale outcomes or RTP time between the docking and modified Jobe techniques for UCL reconstruction when the FPM was preserved and routine submuscular ulnar nerve transposition was not performed.
Background: The most commonly used techniques for elbow ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction (UCLR) are the docking and modified Jobe figure-of-8 techniques. Previous literature has suggested that UCLR with the docking technique is associated with fewer complications; however, these studies included results from the original classic Jobe technique without controlling for the effects of flexor pronator mass (FPM) detachment and routine submuscular ulnar nerve transposition (UNT). Purpose/Hypothesis: This study sought to compare the rates of complications and subsequent unplanned surgical procedures between the docking and figure-of-8 techniques. We hypothesized that there would be no significant difference in the rates of complications or subsequent unplanned surgical procedures between the techniques when the FPM was preserved and no routine submuscular UNT was performed. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: This study was performed in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. A series of mixed-effects multivariate metaregression models were implemented using the restricted maximum likelihood method. Complications and subsequent unplanned surgical procedures were modeled as Freeman-Tukey transformed incidence rates for variance stabilization, and nerve-specific complications were assessed as the Freeman-Tukey transformed proportion of cases, with back-transformation to estimate summary effects. Results: There were 19 studies eligible for qualitative analysis, consisting of 1788 cases of UCLR (303 docking, 1485 figure-of-8), 18 of which were suitable for quantitative analysis (1769 cases; 291 docking, 1478 figure-of-8). A total of 338 complications were reported (17 for docking, 321 for figure-of-8), the majority of which were nerve related. Additionally, a total of 75 subsequent unplanned surgical procedures were related to the index UCLR procedure. There was no significant difference in the rate of complications ( P = .146) or proportion of cases with nerve-specific complications ( P = .127) between the docking and figure-of-8 techniques when controlling for FPM preservation versus detachment with submuscular UNT. FPM detachment with submuscular UNT was independently associated with a significantly higher proportion of postoperative nerve-related complications ( P = .004). There was also no significant difference in the rates of subsequent unplanned surgical procedures between the docking and figure-of-8 techniques ( P = .961), although FPM detachment with routine submuscular UNT was independently associated with a significantly higher incidence of subsequent unplanned surgical procedures. Conclusion: The results of this study demonstrate no significant difference in the rates of complications or subsequent unplanned surgical procedures between the figure-of-8 and docking techniques for UCLR when controlling for FPM preservation versus detachment with submuscular UNT. With modern muscle-sparing approaches and avoiding submuscular UNT, the modified Jobe technique does not differ significantly from the docking technique in terms of complication rates, proportions of cases with nerve-specific complications, or rates of subsequent unplanned surgical procedures.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.