TY - JOUR
T1 - Bone Marrow Stimulation for Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair
T2 - A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
AU - Hurley, Eoghan T.
AU - Crook, Bryan S.
AU - Danilkowicz, Richard M.
AU - Jazrawi, Laith M.
AU - Mirzayan, Raffy
AU - Dickens, Jonathan F.
AU - Anakwenze, Oke
AU - Klifto, Christopher S.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 The Author(s).
PY - 2024/10
Y1 - 2024/10
N2 - Background: Bone marrow stimulation (BMS) has been proposed to augment healing at the time of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) by creating several bone marrow vents in the footprint of the rotator cuff, allowing mesenchymal stem cells, platelets, and growth factors to cover the area as a “crimson duvet.” Purpose: To perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the outcomes after BMS and a control for those undergoing ARCR. Study Design: Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: A literature search of 3 databases was performed based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. RCTs comparing BMS and a control for ARCR were included. Clinical outcomes were compared, and a P value <.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Results: A total of 7 RCTs with 576 patients were included. Overall, 18.8% of patients treated with BMS and 21.0% of patients treated with a control had a retear (I2 = 43%; P =.61). With BMS, the mean Constant score was 88.2, and with the control, the mean Constant score was 86.7 (P =.12). Additionally, there was no significant difference in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (94.3 vs 93.2, respectively; P =.31) or visual analog scale score (0.9 vs 0.9, respectively; P =.89). Conclusion: The level 1 evidence in the literature did not support BMS as a modality to improve retear rates or clinical outcomes after ARCR.
AB - Background: Bone marrow stimulation (BMS) has been proposed to augment healing at the time of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) by creating several bone marrow vents in the footprint of the rotator cuff, allowing mesenchymal stem cells, platelets, and growth factors to cover the area as a “crimson duvet.” Purpose: To perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the outcomes after BMS and a control for those undergoing ARCR. Study Design: Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: A literature search of 3 databases was performed based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. RCTs comparing BMS and a control for ARCR were included. Clinical outcomes were compared, and a P value <.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Results: A total of 7 RCTs with 576 patients were included. Overall, 18.8% of patients treated with BMS and 21.0% of patients treated with a control had a retear (I2 = 43%; P =.61). With BMS, the mean Constant score was 88.2, and with the control, the mean Constant score was 86.7 (P =.12). Additionally, there was no significant difference in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (94.3 vs 93.2, respectively; P =.31) or visual analog scale score (0.9 vs 0.9, respectively; P =.89). Conclusion: The level 1 evidence in the literature did not support BMS as a modality to improve retear rates or clinical outcomes after ARCR.
KW - arthroscopic surgery
KW - bone marrow stimulation
KW - repair
KW - rotator cuff
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85184422877&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/03635465231213873
DO - 10.1177/03635465231213873
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85184422877
SN - 0363-5465
VL - 52
SP - 3167
EP - 3172
JO - American Journal of Sports Medicine
JF - American Journal of Sports Medicine
IS - 12
ER -