Bridge enhanced ACL repair vs. ACL reconstruction for ACL tears: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.

IF 1.8 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS SICOT-J Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1051/sicotj/2023007

Jad Mansour, Joe Ghanimeh, Ali Ghoul, Michel Estephan, Alfred Khoury, Mohammad Daher

{"title":"Bridge enhanced ACL repair vs. ACL reconstruction for ACL tears: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.","authors":"Jad Mansour, Joe Ghanimeh, Ali Ghoul, Michel Estephan, Alfred Khoury, Mohammad Daher","doi":"10.1051/sicotj/2023007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear is one of the most frequent ligamentous injuries. The gold standard for ACL tears is autograft reconstruction. However, ACL repair has regained enthusiasm with more recent results showing comparable outcomes to its reconstructive counterpart.Methods: PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (pp. 1-20) were searched until November 2022. The clinical outcomes consisted of the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), the side-to-side difference in Anteroposterior (AP) knee laxity, the forces of the hamstring, quadriceps, and hip abduction as well as hopping tests.Results: Only two studies were included in this meta-analysis. ACL repair was shown to have better Hamstrings strength. The rest of the analyzed outcomes were comparable.Discussion: This is the first meta-analysis comparing these two treatments. The ACL repair showed no differences in muscle strength (quadriceps and hip abductors), postoperative knee scores, and knee joint laxity when compared to ACL reconstruction. However, it showed better hamstring strength. Further randomized clinical studies will be needed to compare both of these techniques.","PeriodicalId":46378,"journal":{"name":"SICOT-J","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10092275/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SICOT-J","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1051/sicotj/2023007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Abstract

Introduction: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear is one of the most frequent ligamentous injuries. The gold standard for ACL tears is autograft reconstruction. However, ACL repair has regained enthusiasm with more recent results showing comparable outcomes to its reconstructive counterpart.

Methods: PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (pp. 1-20) were searched until November 2022. The clinical outcomes consisted of the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), the side-to-side difference in Anteroposterior (AP) knee laxity, the forces of the hamstring, quadriceps, and hip abduction as well as hopping tests.

Results: Only two studies were included in this meta-analysis. ACL repair was shown to have better Hamstrings strength. The rest of the analyzed outcomes were comparable.

Discussion: This is the first meta-analysis comparing these two treatments. The ACL repair showed no differences in muscle strength (quadriceps and hip abductors), postoperative knee scores, and knee joint laxity when compared to ACL reconstruction. However, it showed better hamstring strength. Further randomized clinical studies will be needed to compare both of these techniques.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

桥增强前交叉韧带修复与前交叉韧带重建治疗前交叉韧带撕裂:系统回顾和比较研究的荟萃分析。

简介:前交叉韧带撕裂是最常见的韧带损伤之一。前交叉韧带撕裂的金标准是自体移植物重建。然而，最近的研究结果显示，前交叉韧带修复与重建的结果相当，重新获得了人们的热情。方法:检索PubMed、Cochrane和Google Scholar (pp. 1-20)至2022年11月。临床结果包括国际膝关节文献委员会(IKDC)评分、膝关节损伤和骨关节炎结局评分(oos)、膝关节前后位(AP)松弛程度的侧对侧差异、腘绳肌、股四头肌的力量、髋关节外展以及跳跃测试。结果:本荟萃分析仅纳入两项研究。前交叉韧带修复显示有更好的腘绳肌力量。其余分析结果具有可比性。讨论:这是比较这两种治疗方法的首次荟萃分析。与前交叉韧带重建相比，前交叉韧带修复在肌肉力量(股四头肌和髋外展肌)、术后膝关节评分和膝关节松弛度方面没有差异。然而，它显示出更好的腿筋力量。需要进一步的随机临床研究来比较这两种技术。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊