Background The ideal rotator cuff repair technique should allow for a quick and simple arthroscopic application which provides both adequate biomechanical stability and an appropriate biological state with the intention of promoting eventual healing of tendon to bone. While the biomechanical superiority of double-row repairs including higher repair strength, reduced gap formation, and wider footprint restoration have been proven, controversy remains regarding the clinical benefits of knotless compared with knot tying techniques. Our study aims to review the available evidence in the literature comparing the clinical outcomes between knotted and knotless transosseous double-row rotator cuff repair techniques. Methods A systematic literature search via PubMed, Embase, and Scopus was conducted by 2 independent reviewers. Studies reporting clinical outcomes of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair using the double-row knotted and knotless surgical techniques were identified. Data were analyzed with Review Manager 5.3, using Mantel-Haenszel statistics with both fixed and random effect models. Results A total of 1144 studies were identified from our initial search. Based on our inclusion and exclusion criteria, 8 studies were eventually selected for our review. The selected studies were published between 2012 and 2018. Of the 8 studies, 3 reported level 2 evidence and 5 reported level 3 evidence. There were a total of 589 subjects. Our meta-analysis revealed that there were no significant differences in functional outcomes postoperatively when comparing Constant score (mean difference = −1.85, 95% confidence interval: −4.42 to 0.73), University of California at Los Angeles score (mean differences = −0.14, 95% confidence interval: −0.90 to 0.62), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (mean differences = −2.19, 95% confidence interval: −5.55 to 1.17) between patients who underwent knotted and knotless rotator cuff repairs. Discussions and Conclusion Our review revealed no statistically significant difference in functional outcomes between knotted and knotless transosseous double-row techniques for arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs. To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis related to this topic. However, no level 1 studies were available for this review. Further studies related to this topic should focus on reporting level 1 evidence comparing the clinical outcomes of knotless and knotted techniques for double-row repairs.

To determine the accuracy of thoracolumbar pedicle screw insertion with the routine use of three-dimensional (3D) intraoperative imaging and navigation over a large series of screws in an Asian population. Overview of Literature: The use of 3D intraoperative imaging and navigation in spinal surgery is aimed at improving the accuracy of pedicle screw insertion. This study analyzed 2,240 pedicle screws inserted with the routine use of intraoperative navigation. It is one of very few studies done on an Asian population with a large series of screws. Methods: Patients who had undergone thoracolumbar pedicle screws insertion using intraoperative imaging and navigation between 2009 and 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Computed tomography (CT) images acquired after the insertion of pedicle screws were analyzed for breach of the pedicle wall. The pedicle screw breaches were graded according to the Gertzbein classification. The breach rate and revision rate were subsequently calculated. Results: A total of 2,240 thoracolumbar pedicle screws inserted under the guidance of intraoperative navigation were analyzed, and the accuracy of the insertion was 97.41%. The overall breach rate was 2.59%, the major breach rate was 0.94%, and the intraoperative screw revision rate was 0.7%. There was no incidence of return to the operating theater for revision of screws. Conclusions: The routine use of 3D navigation and intraoperative CT imaging resulted in consistently accurate pedicle screw placement. This improved the safety of spinal instrumentation and helped in avoiding revision surgery for malpositioned screws.

No abstract