微骨折技术的进步一定会转化为临床疗效吗?

S. Muthu, V. Viswanathan, Manoharan Sakthivel, Mohammed Thabrez
{"title":"微骨折技术的进步一定会转化为临床疗效吗?","authors":"S. Muthu, V. Viswanathan, Manoharan Sakthivel, Mohammed Thabrez","doi":"10.5312/wjo.v15.i3.266","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\n Multitudinous advancements have been made to the traditional microfracture (MFx) technique, which have involved delivery of various acellular 2nd generation MFx and cellular MFx-III components to the area of cartilage defect. The relative benefits and pitfalls of these diverse modifications of MFx technique are still not widely understood.\n AIM\n To comparatively analyze the functional, radiological, and histological outcomes, and complications of various generations of MFx available for the treatment of cartilage defects.\n METHODS\n A systematic review was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus. Patients of any age and sex with cartilage defects undergoing any form of MFx were considered for analysis. We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting functional, radiological, histological outcomes or complications of various generations of MFx for the management of cartilage defects. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted in Stata and Cochrane’s Confidence in NMA approach was utilized for appraisal of evidence.\n RESULTS\n Forty-four RCTs were included in the analysis with patients of mean age of 39.40 (± 9.46) years. Upon comparing the results of the other generations with MFX-I as a constant comparator, we noted a trend towards better pain control and functional outcome (KOOS, IKDC, and Cincinnati scores) at the end of 1-, 2-, and 5-year time points with MFx-III, although the differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). We also noted statistically significant Magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue score in the higher generations of microfracture (weighted mean difference: 17.44, 95% confidence interval: 0.72, 34.16, P = 0.025; without significant heterogeneity) at 1 year. However, the difference was not maintained at 2 years. There was a trend towards better defect filling on MRI with the second and third generation MFx, although the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05).\n CONCLUSION\n The higher generations of traditional MFx technique utilizing acellular and cellular components to augment its potential in the management of cartilage defects has shown only marginal improvement in the clinical and radiological outcomes.","PeriodicalId":506838,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Orthopedics","volume":"11 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does progress in microfracture techniques necessarily translate into clinical effectiveness?\",\"authors\":\"S. Muthu, V. Viswanathan, Manoharan Sakthivel, Mohammed Thabrez\",\"doi\":\"10.5312/wjo.v15.i3.266\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\n Multitudinous advancements have been made to the traditional microfracture (MFx) technique, which have involved delivery of various acellular 2nd generation MFx and cellular MFx-III components to the area of cartilage defect. The relative benefits and pitfalls of these diverse modifications of MFx technique are still not widely understood.\\n AIM\\n To comparatively analyze the functional, radiological, and histological outcomes, and complications of various generations of MFx available for the treatment of cartilage defects.\\n METHODS\\n A systematic review was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus. Patients of any age and sex with cartilage defects undergoing any form of MFx were considered for analysis. We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting functional, radiological, histological outcomes or complications of various generations of MFx for the management of cartilage defects. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted in Stata and Cochrane’s Confidence in NMA approach was utilized for appraisal of evidence.\\n RESULTS\\n Forty-four RCTs were included in the analysis with patients of mean age of 39.40 (± 9.46) years. Upon comparing the results of the other generations with MFX-I as a constant comparator, we noted a trend towards better pain control and functional outcome (KOOS, IKDC, and Cincinnati scores) at the end of 1-, 2-, and 5-year time points with MFx-III, although the differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). We also noted statistically significant Magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue score in the higher generations of microfracture (weighted mean difference: 17.44, 95% confidence interval: 0.72, 34.16, P = 0.025; without significant heterogeneity) at 1 year. However, the difference was not maintained at 2 years. There was a trend towards better defect filling on MRI with the second and third generation MFx, although the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05).\\n CONCLUSION\\n The higher generations of traditional MFx technique utilizing acellular and cellular components to augment its potential in the management of cartilage defects has shown only marginal improvement in the clinical and radiological outcomes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":506838,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World Journal of Orthopedics\",\"volume\":\"11 9\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World Journal of Orthopedics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v15.i3.266\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Orthopedics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v15.i3.266","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景 传统的微骨折(MFx)技术已经取得了许多进步,其中包括向软骨缺损区域输送各种无细胞第二代 MFx 和细胞 MFx-III 成分。目前,人们对这些不同的软骨折叠技术改造的相对优势和缺陷仍不甚了解。目的 比较分析用于治疗软骨缺损的各代 MFx 的功能、放射学和组织学结果及并发症。方法 使用 PubMed、EMBASE、Web of Science、Cochrane 和 Scopus 进行系统性回顾。任何年龄和性别的软骨缺损患者均可接受任何形式的 MFx 治疗。我们只纳入了报告各代MFx治疗软骨缺损的功能、放射学、组织学结果或并发症的随机对照试验(RCT)。使用 Stata 进行了网络荟萃分析(NMA),并使用 Cochrane 的 "NMA 置信度 "方法进行证据评估。结果 有 44 项 RCT 纳入分析,患者平均年龄为 39.40 (± 9.46) 岁。将其他几代患者的结果与 MFX-I 作为恒定比较者进行比较后,我们注意到,在 1、2 和 5 年时间点结束时,MFx-III 有更好的疼痛控制和功能结果(KOOS、IKDC 和辛辛那提评分)趋势,尽管差异不具有统计学意义(P > 0.05)。我们还注意到,在较高世代的微骨折中,软骨修复组织评分的磁共振观察结果具有统计学意义(加权平均差:17.44,95% 置信区间:0.05):17.44,95% 置信区间:0.72, 34.16,P = 0.025;无显著异质性)。然而,这种差异在 2 年后没有得到维持。第二代和第三代 MFx 在磁共振成像上有更好的缺损填充趋势,但差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。结论 传统的多囊肾技术在治疗软骨缺损时,利用细胞和非细胞成分来增强其潜力,但这些技术在临床和放射学结果方面的改善微乎其微。
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
Does progress in microfracture techniques necessarily translate into clinical effectiveness?
BACKGROUND Multitudinous advancements have been made to the traditional microfracture (MFx) technique, which have involved delivery of various acellular 2nd generation MFx and cellular MFx-III components to the area of cartilage defect. The relative benefits and pitfalls of these diverse modifications of MFx technique are still not widely understood. AIM To comparatively analyze the functional, radiological, and histological outcomes, and complications of various generations of MFx available for the treatment of cartilage defects. METHODS A systematic review was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus. Patients of any age and sex with cartilage defects undergoing any form of MFx were considered for analysis. We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting functional, radiological, histological outcomes or complications of various generations of MFx for the management of cartilage defects. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted in Stata and Cochrane’s Confidence in NMA approach was utilized for appraisal of evidence. RESULTS Forty-four RCTs were included in the analysis with patients of mean age of 39.40 (± 9.46) years. Upon comparing the results of the other generations with MFX-I as a constant comparator, we noted a trend towards better pain control and functional outcome (KOOS, IKDC, and Cincinnati scores) at the end of 1-, 2-, and 5-year time points with MFx-III, although the differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). We also noted statistically significant Magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue score in the higher generations of microfracture (weighted mean difference: 17.44, 95% confidence interval: 0.72, 34.16, P = 0.025; without significant heterogeneity) at 1 year. However, the difference was not maintained at 2 years. There was a trend towards better defect filling on MRI with the second and third generation MFx, although the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION The higher generations of traditional MFx technique utilizing acellular and cellular components to augment its potential in the management of cartilage defects has shown only marginal improvement in the clinical and radiological outcomes.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Prevalence and associated factors of clubfoot in the eastern province of Saudi Arabia: A hospital-based study Smoking cessation prior to elective total joint arthroplasty results in sustained abstinence postoperatively Arthroscopic M-shaped suture fixation for tibia avulsion fracture of posterior cruciate ligament: A modified technique and case series Epidemiology of work-related hand and wrist injuries in a referral center: A descriptive study Intraoperative application of three-dimensional printed guides in total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review
×
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