Besides, only associations between the previous factors and a SLAPII repair failure were established, rather than cause-effect relationship. Therefore, the outcomes of this model must be interpreted with caution. However, the presented model-fits expressed in pseudo-R-squared values for 1) the unplanned reoperation model (0.029), and 2) the failed SLAP repair model (0.074) are very low. Based on their multivariable logistic regression model, the authors conclude that “surgeons and patients should take the factors smoking, knotless suture anchors, and having an isolated SLAP repair into account to lower the possibility of unplanned reoperations”. We therefore encourage the readers to consider the study outcome in light of the following remarks.ġ.Interpretation of study outcomes. However, we have some concerns about the interpretation of the study outcomes and the clinical implications based on how a type II SLAP (re)tear had been established. We appreciated the authors’ effort to identify risk factors associated with type II superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP)repair and reoperation after SLAP repair. published in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy(2021) with great interest. We have read the paper “Isolated type II SLAP tears undergo reoperation more frequently” by DeFazio, M. Isolated Type II SLAP Tears Undergo Reoperation More FrequentlyĭeFazio MW, Özkan S, Wagner ER, Warner JJP, Chen NC.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |