全内侧前交叉韧带重建术的临床效果与经胫技术相似,但侧间差和Tegner活动量表有所改善:系统回顾与元分析》。

{"title":"全内侧前交叉韧带重建术的临床效果与经胫技术相似,但侧间差和Tegner活动量表有所改善:系统回顾与元分析》。","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.arthro.2024.01.044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To compare clinical outcomes of the all-inside technique with the transtibial technique in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction based on available literature on this topic.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p><span><span>According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist, we conducted a systematic search for </span>randomized controlled trials<span> and cohort studies. Our comprehensive search encompassed PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that compared the 2 techniques with a minimal 1-year follow-up. Two independent authors assessed RCTs using the risk of bias tool developed by the Cochrane Collaboration and evaluated the quality of cohort studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomized Comparative Trials. The subjective and objective outcomes, complications, and </span></span>graft failure were obtained. R software was used to perform the analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p><span>The present analysis enrolled 9 RCTs (n = 687) and 11 cohort studies (n = 910). After a minimal 1-year follow-up in RCTs, functional outcomes such as International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score, Lysholm score<span>, Tegner activity scale<span>, Knee Society Score, and hop test were found to be similar between 2 techniques. The laxity outcomes, including the IKDC objective grade and pivot-shift test, were suggested to be comparable. There was a significant difference favoring the transtibial technique in terms of side-to-side difference (</span></span></span><em>P</em> = .04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-0.90). The pooled data from cohort studies indicated equivalent results in terms of IKDC subjective score, Lysholm score, side-to-side difference, IKDC objective grade, complications, and graft failure, with the exception of statistical difference in the Tegner activity scale (<em>P</em> = .03; 95% CI, –0.50 to –0.04).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Our findings suggest that there is no difference in most outcome scores between the all-inside and transtibial techniques for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. There are statistically significant differences in side-to-side difference and Tegner activity scale favoring the all-inside technique.</p></div><div><h3>Level of Evidence</h3><p>Level IV, meta-analysis 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\":\"All-Inside Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Had Clinical Outcome Similar to the Transtibial Technique Except for Improved Side-to-Side Difference and Tegner Activity Scale: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.arthro.2024.01.044\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To compare clinical outcomes of the all-inside technique with the transtibial technique in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction based on available literature on this topic.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p><span><span>According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist, we conducted a systematic search for </span>randomized controlled trials<span> and cohort studies. Our comprehensive search encompassed PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that compared the 2 techniques with a minimal 1-year follow-up. Two independent authors assessed RCTs using the risk of bias tool developed by the Cochrane Collaboration and evaluated the quality of cohort studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomized Comparative Trials. The subjective and objective outcomes, complications, and </span></span>graft failure were obtained. R software was used to perform the analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p><span>The present analysis enrolled 9 RCTs (n = 687) and 11 cohort studies (n = 910). After a minimal 1-year follow-up in RCTs, functional outcomes such as International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score, Lysholm score<span>, Tegner activity scale<span>, Knee Society Score, and hop test were found to be similar between 2 techniques. The laxity outcomes, including the IKDC objective grade and pivot-shift test, were suggested to be comparable. There was a significant difference favoring the transtibial technique in terms of side-to-side difference (</span></span></span><em>P</em> = .04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-0.90). The pooled data from cohort studies indicated equivalent results in terms of IKDC subjective score, Lysholm score, side-to-side difference, IKDC objective grade, complications, and graft failure, with the exception of statistical difference in the Tegner activity scale (<em>P</em> = .03; 95% CI, –0.50 to –0.04).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Our findings suggest that there is no difference in most outcome scores between the all-inside and transtibial techniques for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. There are statistically significant differences in side-to-side difference and Tegner activity scale favoring the all-inside technique.</p></div><div><h3>Level of Evidence</h3><p>Level IV, meta-analysis 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/S0749806324001002\",\"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/S0749806324001002","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:根据现有相关文献,比较前交叉韧带重建中全内侧技术与经胫骨技术的临床效果:根据 PRISMA 核对表,我们对随机对照试验和队列研究进行了系统检索。我们的综合搜索包括 PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library 和 Web of Science。我们纳入了对两种技术进行比较且随访至少一年的随机对照试验和队列研究。两位独立作者使用 Cochrane 协作组织开发的偏倚风险工具对 RCT 进行了评估,并使用纽卡斯尔-渥太华非随机比较试验质量评估量表对队列研究的质量进行了评估。获得了主观和客观结果、并发症和移植物失败。使用 R 软件进行分析:本分析共纳入了 9 项 RCT(n= 687)和 11 项队列研究(n= 910)。经过最短一年的RCT随访,发现两种技术的功能结果相似,如IKDC主观评分、Lysholm评分、Tegner活动量表、膝关节社会评分和Hop测试。而包括 IKDC 客观评分和枢轴移位测试在内的松弛结果则具有可比性。在侧对侧差异方面,经胫骨技术有明显优势(P=0.04,95% CI=0.08-0.90)。来自队列研究的汇总数据显示,IKDC主观评分、Lysholm评分、侧对侧差异、IKDC客观分级、并发症和移植物失败的结果相当,但Tegner活动量表有统计学差异(P=0.03,95% CI=-0.50至-0.04):我们的研究结果表明,在前交叉韧带重建术中,全内侧和经胫骨技术在大多数结果评分上没有差异。在侧对侧差异和 Tegner 活动量表中,全髂内侧技术的差异具有统计学意义。
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
All-Inside Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Had Clinical Outcome Similar to the Transtibial Technique Except for Improved Side-to-Side Difference and Tegner Activity Scale: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Purpose

To compare clinical outcomes of the all-inside technique with the transtibial technique in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction based on available literature on this topic.

Methods

According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist, we conducted a systematic search for randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. Our comprehensive search encompassed PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that compared the 2 techniques with a minimal 1-year follow-up. Two independent authors assessed RCTs using the risk of bias tool developed by the Cochrane Collaboration and evaluated the quality of cohort studies using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomized Comparative Trials. The subjective and objective outcomes, complications, and graft failure were obtained. R software was used to perform the analysis.

Results

The present analysis enrolled 9 RCTs (n = 687) and 11 cohort studies (n = 910). After a minimal 1-year follow-up in RCTs, functional outcomes such as International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score, Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale, Knee Society Score, and hop test were found to be similar between 2 techniques. The laxity outcomes, including the IKDC objective grade and pivot-shift test, were suggested to be comparable. There was a significant difference favoring the transtibial technique in terms of side-to-side difference (P = .04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-0.90). The pooled data from cohort studies indicated equivalent results in terms of IKDC subjective score, Lysholm score, side-to-side difference, IKDC objective grade, complications, and graft failure, with the exception of statistical difference in the Tegner activity scale (P = .03; 95% CI, –0.50 to –0.04).

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that there is no difference in most outcome scores between the all-inside and transtibial techniques for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. There are statistically significant differences in side-to-side difference and Tegner activity scale favoring the all-inside technique.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, meta-analysis 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
Author Reply to Editorial Comment "Autologous Minced Repair of Knee Cartilage Is Safely and Effectively Performed Using Arthroscopic Techniques". Culture Expansion Alters Human Bone Marrow Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cell Production of Osteoarthritis-relevant Cytokines and Growth Factors. Steeper Slope of the Medial Tibial Plateau, Greater Varus Alignment, and Narrower Intercondylar Distance and Notch Width Increase Risk for Medial Meniscus Posterior Root Tears: A Systematic Review. Synthetic Medial Meniscus Implant Demonstrates High Reoperation Rates: Patients Who Retain Implant or Require Implant Exchange SHow Improvement For Post Meniscectomy Knee Pain Is Associated With Clinical Improvement But High Reoperation Rates At 2-Years Post-Operatively. The Knee Anterolateral Ligament is Present in 82% of North American and 65% of European But Only in 46% of Asian Studies: A Systematic Review of Frequency and Anatomy.
×
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