Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFancher, Andrew J.
dc.contributor.authorMok, Anthony C.
dc.contributor.authorVopat, Matthew L.
dc.contributor.authorTempleton, Kim
dc.contributor.authorKimbrel, Brandon K.
dc.contributor.authorTarakemeh, Armin
dc.contributor.authorMulcahey, Mary K.
dc.contributor.authorMullen, Scott
dc.contributor.authorSchroeppel, John P.
dc.contributor.authorVopat, Bryan G.
dc.date.accessioned2022-11-17T16:08:08Z
dc.date.available2022-11-17T16:08:08Z
dc.date.issued2022-05-20
dc.identifier.citationFancher AJ, Mok AC, Vopat ML, et al. Comparing Sex-Specific Outcomes After Rotator Cuff Repair: A Meta-analysis. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine. 2022;10(5). doi:10.1177/23259671221086259en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1808/33667
dc.descriptionA grant from the One-University Open Access Fund at the University of Kansas was used to defray the author's publication fees in this Open Access journal. The Open Access Fund, administered by librarians from the KU, KU Law, and KUMC libraries, is made possible by contributions from the offices of KU Provost, KU Vice Chancellor for Research & Graduate Studies, and KUMC Vice Chancellor for Research. For more information about the Open Access Fund, please see http://library.kumc.edu/authors-fund.xml.
dc.description.abstractBackground: Rotator cuff repair (RCR) is a well-studied procedure. However, the impact of patient sex on outcomes after RCR has not been well studied.

Purpose: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of sex-based differences in outcomes after RCR and to record what proportion of studies examined this as a primary or secondary purpose.

Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods: A systematic review was performed using multiple databases according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies were included if they were written in English, performed on humans, consisted of patients who underwent RCR, evaluated at least 1 of the selected outcomes based on patient sex, and had statistical analysis available for their sex-based claim. Excluded were case reports, review studies, systematic reviews, cadaveric studies, and studies that did not report at least 1 sex-specific outcome or included certain other injuries associated with a rotator cuff injury.

Results: Of 9998 studies screened and 1283 full-text studies reviewed, 11 (0.11%) studies with 2860 patients (1549 male and 1329 female) were included for quantitative analysis. None of these 11 studies examined the impact of patient sex on outcomes after RCR as a primary outcome. Postoperative Constant-Murley scores were analyzed for 7 studies. Male patients had a postoperative Constant-Murley score of 76.77 ± 15.94, while female patients had a postoperative Constant-Murley score of 69.88 ± 17.02. The random-effects model showed that male patients had significantly higher scores than female patients, with a mean difference of 7.33 (95% CI, 5.21-9.46; P < .0001). Analysis of retear rates in 5 studies indicated that there was no difference in the retear rate between sexes (odds ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.49-1.67]).

Conclusion: Female patients had lower postoperative Constant-Murley scores compared with male patients, but there was no difference in the retear rate. However, these results were based on an analysis of only 11 studies. The paucity of studies examining the impact of sex suggests that more research is needed on the impact of patient sex on outcomes after RCR.
en_US
dc.publisherSAGE Publicationsen_US
dc.rightsCopyright The Author(s) 2022. This open-access article is published and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - No Derivatives License.en_US
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0en_US
dc.subjectRotator cuffen_US
dc.subjectRotator cuff repairen_US
dc.subjectSexen_US
dc.subjectFemaleen_US
dc.subjectMaleen_US
dc.titleComparing Sex-Specific Outcomes After Rotator Cuff Repair: A Meta-analysisen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
kusw.kuauthorFancher, Andrew J.
kusw.kuauthorMok, Anthony C.
kusw.kuauthorVopat, Matthew L.
kusw.kuauthorTempleton, Kim
kusw.kuauthorKimbrel, Brandon K.
kusw.kuauthorTarakemeh, Armin
kusw.kuauthorMulcahey, Mary K.
kusw.kuauthorMullen, Scott
kusw.kuauthorSchroeppel, John P.
kusw.kuauthorVopat, Bryan G.
kusw.kudepartmentUniversity of Kansas Medical Centeren_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/23259671221086259en_US
kusw.oaversionScholarly/refereed, publisher versionen_US
kusw.oapolicyThis item meets KU Open Access policy criteria.en_US
dc.rights.accessrightsopenAccessen_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Copyright The Author(s) 2022. This open-access article is published and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - No Derivatives License.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as: Copyright The Author(s) 2022. This open-access article is published and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - No Derivatives License.