Low quality evidence supports surgery for gluteal tendon tears, no non-surgical evidence was identified: a systematic review

Gluteal tendon tears (GTT) are associated with significant morbidity, similar to end stage, hip osteoarthritis. To date, there is unclear evidence as to what best management for GTT constitutes, and what are the subsequent outcomes for the different management approaches (surgical, non-surgical). The purpose of this systematic review is to document treatments, synthesise evidence, and assess the quality of available evidence regarding the treatments and outcomes associated with symptomatic GTT. A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Six databases were searched, from inception to November 2024 (Cinahl, Scopus, Web of Science, Medline, ClinicalTrial.gov, Cochrane). Inclusion criteria were any research on the management of GTT, exclusion criteria were any other intra-articular pathology. The primary outcome measures were pre-and post-intervention measures for Quality of Life (QoL)(iHOT-12/33) and pain severity (visual analogue scale (VAS)) and were compared to minimally clinically important change. Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool was used to assess methodological quality and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to evaluate certainty of evidence. Datum and graphs were synthesised using RevMan software, in accordance with Cochrane guidelines. In total 1,584 participants across the 38 papers involving 49 studies met inclusion criteria. All investigated surgery – 35 papers were case-series and three were cohort studies. No randomised controlled studies were identified. Interventions were sub-grouped as: Endoscopic Repair (n = 507), Open Repair (n = 950) and Gluteus maximus transfer (n = 127). 58% of studies were categorised as low quality, scoring < 65% on the JBI critical appraisal tool. High heterogeneity (clinical and methodological) was observed, and very low certainty of evidence was found according to GRADE assessment. Surgical intervention for people with GTT was associated with improvement of QoL (range, 22.1/100 to 48.8/100) and pain severity (range, -7.0/10 to -1.2/10) at minimum 12-month follow-up. Very low quality and certainty of evidence found surgical intervention for GTT was associated with improvements in QoL and pain severity. No non-surgical treatments studies for this condition were identified.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Published
2026-02-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-026-09519-0
Primary Topic
Hip disorders and treatments
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Low quality evidence supports surgery for gluteal tendon tears, no non-surgical evidence was identified: a systematic review

Anthony Nasser, Bill Vicenzino, Nicholas A. T. Brown, A. Fearon et al.
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
Hip disorders and treatments
article

Low quality evidence supports surgery for gluteal tendon tears, no non-surgical evidence was identified: a systematic review

Anthony Nasser, Bill Vicenzino, Nicholas A. T. Brown, A. Fearon, Trevor J. Spencer, Paul N Smith, Alison Grimaldi
article en

Abstract

Gluteal tendon tears (GTT) are associated with significant morbidity, similar to end stage, hip osteoarthritis. To date, there is unclear evidence as to what best management for GTT constitutes, and what are the subsequent outcomes for the different management approaches (surgical, non-surgical). The purpose of this systematic review is to document treatments, synthesise evidence, and assess the quality of available evidence regarding the treatments and outcomes associated with symptomatic GTT. A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Six databases were searched, from inception to November 2024 (Cinahl, Scopus, Web of Science, Medline, ClinicalTrial.gov, Cochrane). Inclusion criteria were any research on the management of GTT, exclusion criteria were any other intra-articular pathology. The primary outcome measures were pre-and post-intervention measures for Quality of Life (QoL)(iHOT-12/33) and pain severity (visual analogue scale (VAS)) and were compared to minimally clinically important change. Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool was used to assess methodological quality and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to evaluate certainty of evidence. Datum and graphs were synthesised using RevMan software, in accordance with Cochrane guidelines. In total 1,584 participants across the 38 papers involving 49 studies met inclusion criteria. All investigated surgery – 35 papers were case-series and three were cohort studies. No randomised controlled studies were identified. Interventions were sub-grouped as: Endoscopic Repair (n = 507), Open Repair (n = 950) and Gluteus maximus transfer (n = 127). 58% of studies were categorised as low quality, scoring < 65% on the JBI critical appraisal tool. High heterogeneity (clinical and methodological) was observed, and very low certainty of evidence was found according to GRADE assessment. Surgical intervention for people with GTT was associated with improvement of QoL (range, 22.1/100 to 48.8/100) and pain severity (range, -7.0/10 to -1.2/10) at minimum 12-month follow-up. Very low quality and certainty of evidence found surgical intervention for GTT was associated with improvements in QoL and pain severity. No non-surgical treatments studies for this condition were identified.

BMC Musculoskeletal DisordersVol. 27(1)
University of Technology Sydney (AU), Australian National University (AU), Queensland University of Technology (AU), The University of Queensland (AU), University of Canberra (AU), Canberra Hospital (AU)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 68%
Hip disorders and treatments
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.