早期前交叉韧带治疗可能是急性前交叉韧带和内侧副韧带联合损伤的关键:各种治疗策略的系统回顾

{"title":"早期前交叉韧带治疗可能是急性前交叉韧带和内侧副韧带联合损伤的关键:各种治疗策略的系统回顾","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.arthro.2024.01.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To assess the outcomes of acute, combined, complete anterior cruciate ligament<span> (ACL) and medial collateral ligament (MCL) injuries in the literature.</span></p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A literature search using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Reviews was performed following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. The inclusion criteria were studies reporting outcomes of complete ACL-MCL injuries at a minimum of 12 months’ follow-up. Data were presented as ranges.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Twenty-seven studies with 821 patients were included (mean age, 29 years; 61% male patients; mean follow-up period, 27 months). There were 4 randomized trials, 10 Level III studies, and 13 Level IV studies. Nine different strategies were noted, of which nonoperative MCL treatment with acute ACL reconstruction<span> and acute MCL repair with acute ACL reconstruction were most commonly performed. Nonoperative MCL-ACL treatment and acute MCL repair with nonoperative ACL treatment led to low rates of valgus<span> stability at 30° of flexion (27%-68% and 36%-77%, respectively) compared with acute ACL reconstruction with either nonoperative MCL treatment (80%-100%), acute MCL repair (65%-100%), or acute MCL reconstruction<span> (81%-100%). Lysholm scores were not different between the strategies.</span></span></span></p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Outcomes in this systematic review suggest that ACL stabilization in the acute setting might result in the lowest rates of residual valgus laxity, whereas there is no clear difference between the different MCL treatments along with acute ACL reconstruction. Nonoperative MCL treatment with either nonoperative or delayed ACL reconstruction, as well as acute MCL repair with either nonoperative or delayed ACL reconstruction, leads to higher rates of valgus laxity.</p></div><div><h3>Level of Evidence</h3><p>Level IV, systematic review of Level I to IV studies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55459,"journal":{"name":"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Early Anterior Cruciate Ligament Treatment Might Be Crucial for Acute Combined Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Medial Collateral Ligament Injuries: A Systematic Review of the Various Treatment Strategies\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.arthro.2024.01.009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To assess the outcomes of acute, combined, complete anterior cruciate ligament<span> (ACL) and medial collateral ligament (MCL) injuries in the literature.</span></p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A literature search using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Reviews was performed following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. The inclusion criteria were studies reporting outcomes of complete ACL-MCL injuries at a minimum of 12 months’ follow-up. Data were presented as ranges.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Twenty-seven studies with 821 patients were included (mean age, 29 years; 61% male patients; mean follow-up period, 27 months). There were 4 randomized trials, 10 Level III studies, and 13 Level IV studies. Nine different strategies were noted, of which nonoperative MCL treatment with acute ACL reconstruction<span> and acute MCL repair with acute ACL reconstruction were most commonly performed. Nonoperative MCL-ACL treatment and acute MCL repair with nonoperative ACL treatment led to low rates of valgus<span> stability at 30° of flexion (27%-68% and 36%-77%, respectively) compared with acute ACL reconstruction with either nonoperative MCL treatment (80%-100%), acute MCL repair (65%-100%), or acute MCL reconstruction<span> (81%-100%). Lysholm scores were not different between the strategies.</span></span></span></p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Outcomes in this systematic review suggest that ACL stabilization in the acute setting might result in the lowest rates of residual valgus laxity, whereas there is no clear difference between the different MCL treatments along with acute ACL reconstruction. Nonoperative MCL treatment with either nonoperative or delayed ACL reconstruction, as well as acute MCL repair with either nonoperative or delayed ACL reconstruction, leads to higher rates of valgus laxity.</p></div><div><h3>Level of Evidence</h3><p>Level IV, systematic review of Level I to IV studies.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55459,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749806324000148\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749806324000148","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 评估文献中关于急性、合并、完全性前交叉韧带(ACL)和内侧副韧带(MCL)损伤的管理和疗效。方法 按照系统综述和元分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南,利用 PubMed、Embase、Scopus 和 Cochrane Reviews 进行文献检索。纳入标准为至少随访 12 个月并报告前交叉韧带-后交叉韧带完全损伤结果的研究。结果共纳入 27 项研究,821 名患者(平均年龄 29 岁,61% 为男性,平均随访 27 个月)。其中 4 项研究为随机试验,10 项为 III 级研究,13 项为 IV 级研究。前交叉韧带非手术治疗和急性前交叉韧带修复与前交叉韧带非手术治疗相比,前交叉韧带急性重建与前交叉韧带急性重建相比,前交叉韧带非手术治疗和急性前交叉韧带修复与前交叉韧带非手术治疗在屈曲30°时的外翻稳定率较低(分别为27-68%和36-77%),而急性前交叉韧带重建与前交叉韧带非手术治疗(80-100%)、急性前交叉韧带修复(65-100%)和急性前交叉韧带重建(81-100%)相比,前交叉韧带急性重建与前交叉韧带非手术治疗(80-100%)、急性前交叉韧带修复(65-100%)和急性前交叉韧带重建(81-100%)的外翻稳定率较高。结论本系统综述的结果表明,在急性期进行前交叉韧带稳定治疗可能会导致最低的残余外翻松弛率,而不同的 MCL 治疗方法与急性前交叉韧带重建之间并无明显差异。采用非手术或延迟前交叉韧带重建的非手术 MCL 治疗,以及采用非手术或延迟前交叉韧带重建的急性 MCL 修复,会导致更高的外翻松弛率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Early Anterior Cruciate Ligament Treatment Might Be Crucial for Acute Combined Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Medial Collateral Ligament Injuries: A Systematic Review of the Various Treatment Strategies

Purpose

To assess the outcomes of acute, combined, complete anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and medial collateral ligament (MCL) injuries in the literature.

Methods

A literature search using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Reviews was performed following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. The inclusion criteria were studies reporting outcomes of complete ACL-MCL injuries at a minimum of 12 months’ follow-up. Data were presented as ranges.

Results

Twenty-seven studies with 821 patients were included (mean age, 29 years; 61% male patients; mean follow-up period, 27 months). There were 4 randomized trials, 10 Level III studies, and 13 Level IV studies. Nine different strategies were noted, of which nonoperative MCL treatment with acute ACL reconstruction and acute MCL repair with acute ACL reconstruction were most commonly performed. Nonoperative MCL-ACL treatment and acute MCL repair with nonoperative ACL treatment led to low rates of valgus stability at 30° of flexion (27%-68% and 36%-77%, respectively) compared with acute ACL reconstruction with either nonoperative MCL treatment (80%-100%), acute MCL repair (65%-100%), or acute MCL reconstruction (81%-100%). Lysholm scores were not different between the strategies.

Conclusions

Outcomes in this systematic review suggest that ACL stabilization in the acute setting might result in the lowest rates of residual valgus laxity, whereas there is no clear difference between the different MCL treatments along with acute ACL reconstruction. Nonoperative MCL treatment with either nonoperative or delayed ACL reconstruction, as well as acute MCL repair with either nonoperative or delayed ACL reconstruction, leads to higher rates of valgus laxity.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, systematic review of Level I to IV studies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.30
自引率
17.00%
发文量
555
审稿时长
58 days
期刊介绍: Nowhere is minimally invasive surgery explained better than in Arthroscopy, the leading peer-reviewed journal in the field. Every issue enables you to put into perspective the usefulness of the various emerging arthroscopic techniques. The advantages and disadvantages of these methods -- along with their applications in various situations -- are discussed in relation to their efficiency, efficacy and cost benefit. As a special incentive, paid subscribers also receive access to the journal expanded website.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Commentary: Arthroscopic Bone Grafting Using Suspensory Fixation for Anterior Glenohumeral Fixation with Bone Loss May Supersede Latarjet Using Coracoid Transfer. Editorial Commentary: In Cases of Cam Over-resection and Irreparable Hip Labral Tear Requiring Revision, Acetabular Circumferential Labral Reconstruction with Larger Graft Width Is Indicated. Editorial Commentary: Repair of Radial Meniscus Tears. Editorial Commentary:Varus Recurrence After Medial Opening Wedge HTO. Introducing Foundations of Arthroscopy Techniques.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1