Clinical Outcomes of Hip Abductor Repair Using Transosseous Sutures Versus Suture Anchors: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
2025

Comparing Hip Abductor Repair Techniques

Sample size: 680 publication Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Portela-Parra Eduardo BA, Sappey-Marinier Elliot MD, PhD, Julian Kaitlyn BS, Bini Stefano A. MD

Primary Institution: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of California, San Francisco

Hypothesis

Hip abductor tendon repair with suture anchor fixation would lead to superior patient-reported outcomes and fewer postoperative complications compared with transosseous suture repair.

Conclusion

There were no significant differences in patient-reported hip outcomes and pain scores between suture anchor and transosseous suture techniques, although suture anchor fixation trended toward a higher retear rate.

Supporting Evidence

  • Both techniques showed significant improvement in pain scores and functional outcomes.
  • Suture anchor technique had a mean improvement of 32.5 in Harris Hip Score compared to 21.9 for transosseous suture.
  • Retear rates trended higher for suture anchors at 6.7% compared to 1.3% for transosseous sutures.

Takeaway

This study looked at two ways to fix hip tendon tears and found that both methods helped people feel better, but one method might have a slightly higher chance of the tendon tearing again.

Methodology

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 21 studies comparing clinical outcomes of hip abductor repairs using suture anchors and transosseous sutures.

Potential Biases

Potential biases due to lack of blinding and loss to follow-up in some studies.

Limitations

Heterogeneity in patient selection, postoperative care protocols, and outcome measures; small sample sizes in many studies.

Participant Demographics

The study included 680 patients, with a predominance of middle-aged and elderly women.

Statistical Information

P-Value

.06

Confidence Interval

95% CI, 28.4-36.7 for SA; 95% CI, 6.7-37.0 for TS

Statistical Significance

p<0.05

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.1177/23259671241290320

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication