Surgery for patellar tendinopathy (jumper's knee)

Abstract

Background: Patellar tendinopathy is an overuse condition that commonly affects athletes. Surgery is usually offered if medical and physical therapies fail to treat it effectively. There is variation in the type of surgery performed for the condition.

Objectives: To assess the benefits and harms of surgery for patellar tendinopathy in adults.

Search methods: We searched the following databases, to 17 July 2018: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Library, OVID MEDLINE, OVID Embase, clinical trial registries (www.ClinicalTrials.gov) and the WHO trials portal (www.who.int/ictrp/en/).

Selection criteria: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared surgical techniques (open or arthroscopic) with non-operative treatment (including placebo surgery, exercise or other non-surgical modalities) in adults with patellar tendinopathy.Major outcomes assessed were knee pain, function, quality of life, participant global assessment of success, withdrawal rate, proportion with adverse events and proportion with tendon rupture.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors selected studies for inclusion, extracted trial characteristics and outcome data, assessed the risk of bias and assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

Main results: Two trials (92 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Participants in both trials were followed for 12 months. Neither trial compared surgery to placebo surgery. One trial (40 randomised participants) compared open surgical excision with eccentric exercises, and the other compared arthroscopic surgery with sclerosing injections (52 randomised participants). Due to the nature of the interventions, neither the participants or the investigators were blinded to the group allocation, resulting in the potential for performance and detection bias. Some outcomes were selectively not recorded, leading to reporting bias. Overall, the certainty of the evidence from these studies was low for all outcomes due to the potential for bias, and imprecision due to small sample sizes.Compared with eccentric exercises, low-certainty evidence indicates that open surgical excision provides no clinically important benefits with respect to knee pain, function or global assessment of success. At 12 months, mean knee pain - measured by pain with standing jump on a 10-point scale (lower scores indicating less pain) - was 1.7 points (standard deviation (SD) 1.6) in the eccentric training group and 1.3 (SD 0.8) in the surgical group (one trial, 40 participants). This equates to an absolute pain reduction of 4% (ranging from 4% worse to 12% better, the minimal clinically important difference being 15%) and a relative reduction in pain of 10% better (ranging from 30% better to 10% worse) in the treatment group. At 12 months, function on the zero- to 100-point Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment (VISA) scale was 65.7 (SD 23.8) in the eccentric training group and 72.9 (SD 11.7) in the surgical group (one trial, 40 participants). This equates to an absolute change of 7% better function (ranging from 4% worse to 19% better) and relative change of 25% better (ranging from 15% worse to 65% better, the minimal clinically important difference being 13%). Participant global assessment of success was measured by the number of people with no pain at 12 months: 7/20 participants in the eccentric training group reported no pain, compared with 5/20 in the open surgical group (risk ratio (RR) 0.71 (95% CI 0.27 to 1.88); one trial, 40 participants). There were no withdrawals, but five out of 20 people from the eccentric exercise group crossed over to open surgical excision. Quality of life, adverse events and tendon ruptures were not measured.Compared with sclerosing injection, low-certainty evidence indicates that arthroscopic surgery may provide a reduction in pain and improvement in participant global assessment of success, however further studies are likely to change these results. At 12 months, mean pain with activities, measured on a 100-point scale (lower scores indicating less pain), was 41.1 (SD 28.5) in the sclerosing injection group and 12.8 (SD 19.3) in the arthroscopic surgery group (one trial, 52 participants). This equates to an absolute pain reduction of 28% better (ranging from 15% to 42% better, the minimal clinically important difference being 15%), and a relative change of 41% better (ranging from 21% to 61% better). At 12 months, the mean participant global assessment of success, measured by satisfaction on a 100-point scale (scale zero to 100, higher scores indicating greater satisfaction), was 52.9 (SD 32.6) in the sclerosing injection group and 86.8 (SD 20.8) in the arthroscopic surgery group (one trial, 52 participants). This equates to an absolute improvement of 34% (ranging from 19% to 49%). In both groups, one participant (4%) withdrew from the study. Functional outcome scores, including the VISA score, were not reported. Quality-of-life assessment, adverse events, and specifically the proportion with a tendon rupture, were not reported.We did not perform subgroup analysis to assess differences in outcome between arthroscopic or open surgical excision, as we did not identify more than one study with a common comparator.

Authors' conclusions: We are uncertain if surgery is beneficial over other therapeutic interventions, namely eccentric exercises or injectables. Low-certainty evidence shows that surgery for patellar tendinopathy may not provide clinically important benefits over eccentric exercise in terms of pain, function or participant-reported treatment success, but may provide clinically meaningful pain reduction and treatment success when compared with sclerosing injections. However, further research is likely to change these results. The evidence was downgraded two levels due to the small sample sizes and susceptibility to bias. We are uncertain if there are additional risks associated with surgery as study authors failed to report adverse events. Surgery seems to be embedded in clinical practice for late-stage patella tendinopathy, due to exhaustion of other therapeutic methods rather than evidence of benefit.

1

Study flow diagram.

2

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

3

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

1.1. Analysis

Comparison 1 Open surgical excision vs eccentric exercises, Outcome 1 Knee Pain‐ standing jump.

1.2. Analysis

Comparison 1 Open surgical excision vs eccentric exercises, Outcome 2 Function (VISA) 0 to 100, 100 best.

1.3. Analysis

Comparison 1 Open surgical excision vs eccentric exercises, Outcome 3 Global success ‐ Proportion with no symptoms at 12 months.

1.4. Analysis

Comparison 1 Open surgical excision vs eccentric exercises, Outcome 4 Global assessment of success.

1.5. Analysis

Comparison 1 Open surgical excision vs eccentric exercises, Outcome 5 Return to sport.

2.1. Analysis

Comparison 2 Surgery (arthroscopic) vs sclerosing injection, Outcome 1 Knee pain‐ functional VAS.

2.2. Analysis

Comparison 2 Surgery (arthroscopic) vs sclerosing injection, Outcome 2 Global outcome of success‐ Satisfaction VAS.

2.3. Analysis

Comparison 2 Surgery (arthroscopic) vs sclerosing injection, Outcome 3 Withdrawal rate.