Transosseous tunnels versus suture anchors for the repair of acute quadriceps and patellar tendon ruptures: A systematic review and meta-analysis of biomechanical studies.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Multiple techniques have been developed for the repair of acute quadriceps and patellar tendon ruptures with the goal of optimizing clinical outcomes while minimizing complications and costs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the biomechanical properties of transosseous tunnels and suture anchors for the repair of quadriceps and patellar tendon ruptures. METHODS: A systematic review of the PubMed and Embase databases was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using specific search terms and eligibility criteria. Meta-analysis was performed by fixed-effects models for studies of low heterogeneity (I2 <25%) and random-effects models for studies of moderate to high heterogeneity (I2 ≥25%). RESULTS: A total of 392 studies were identified from the initial literature search with 7 studies meeting the eligibility criteria for quadriceps tendon repair and 8 studies meeting the eligibility criteria for patellar tendon repair. Based on the random-effects model for total gap formation and load to failure for quadriceps tendon repair, the mean difference was 8.88 mm (95% CI, -8.31 mm to 26.06 mm; p = 0.31) in favor of a larger gap with transosseous tunnels and -117.25N (95%CI, -242.73N to 8.23N; p = 0.07) in favor of a larger load to failure with suture anchors. A similar analysis for patellar tendon repair demonstrated a mean difference of 2.86 mm (95% CI, 1.08 mm to 4.64 mm; p = 0.002) in favor of a larger gap with transosseous tunnels and -56.34N (95% CI, -226.75 to 114.07N; p = 0.52) in favor of a larger load to failure with suture anchor repair. CONCLUSIONS: Transosseous tunnels are biomechanically similar to suture anchors for quadriceps tendon repair. Patellar tendon repair may benefit from reduced gap formation after cycling with suture anchor repair, but the load to failure for both techniques is biomechanically similar. Additional studies are necessary to evaluate these and alternative repair techniques. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Systematic review and meta-analysis of biomechanical studies, Level V.