四头肌腱与腘绳肌腱移植用于初级前交叉韧带重建:随机试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS Knee Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1016/j.knee.2024.07.002
Siddarth Raj, Ali Ridha, Henry K.C. Searle, Chetan Khatri, Imran Ahmed, Andrew Metcalfe, Nicholas Smith
{"title":"四头肌腱与腘绳肌腱移植用于初级前交叉韧带重建:随机试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Siddarth Raj,&nbsp;Ali Ridha,&nbsp;Henry K.C. Searle,&nbsp;Chetan Khatri,&nbsp;Imran Ahmed,&nbsp;Andrew Metcalfe,&nbsp;Nicholas Smith","doi":"10.1016/j.knee.2024.07.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is most commonly performed with hamstring tendon (HT) or bone-patellar tendon–bone (BTB) autografts, although the quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft has recently increased in popularity. This systematic review and <em>meta</em>-analysis review compares QT and HT autografts for primary ACLR with a sole focus on randomised controlled trials (RCTs).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A prospective protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023427339). The search included MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science until February 2024. Only comparative RCTs were included. The primary outcome was the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form score. Secondary outcomes included: other validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), objective strength scores, complications, and return to sport and work.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>From 2,609 articles identified, seven were included (<em>n</em> = 474 patients). This <em>meta</em>-analysis did not identify a significant difference in post-operative IKDC scores (5 articles; <em>p</em> = 0.73), Lysholm scores (3 studies; <em>p</em> = 0.80) or Tegner activity scales (2 studies; <em>p</em> = 0.98). There were no differences in graft failure rates (4 studies; <em>p</em> = 0.92) or in overall adverse events (4 studies; <em>p</em> = 0.83) at 24 months post-ACLR as per <em>meta</em>-analysis. Donor site morbidity scores were significantly lower in the QT group (MD −4.67, 95% CI −9.29 to −0.05; 2 studies, 211 patients; <em>p</em> = 0.05, I<sup>2</sup> = 34%).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>There were no differences between QT and HT in PROMs, graft failure rates or overall complications based on low- to moderate-quality evidence. There may possibly be lower donor site morbidity with the QT autograft, however, the evidence is not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":56110,"journal":{"name":"Knee","volume":"49 ","pages":"Pages 226-240"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quadriceps tendon versus hamstring tendon graft for primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials\",\"authors\":\"Siddarth Raj,&nbsp;Ali Ridha,&nbsp;Henry K.C. Searle,&nbsp;Chetan Khatri,&nbsp;Imran Ahmed,&nbsp;Andrew Metcalfe,&nbsp;Nicholas Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.knee.2024.07.002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is most commonly performed with hamstring tendon (HT) or bone-patellar tendon–bone (BTB) autografts, although the quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft has recently increased in popularity. This systematic review and <em>meta</em>-analysis review compares QT and HT autografts for primary ACLR with a sole focus on randomised controlled trials (RCTs).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A prospective protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023427339). The search included MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science until February 2024. Only comparative RCTs were included. The primary outcome was the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form score. Secondary outcomes included: other validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), objective strength scores, complications, and return to sport and work.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>From 2,609 articles identified, seven were included (<em>n</em> = 474 patients). This <em>meta</em>-analysis did not identify a significant difference in post-operative IKDC scores (5 articles; <em>p</em> = 0.73), Lysholm scores (3 studies; <em>p</em> = 0.80) or Tegner activity scales (2 studies; <em>p</em> = 0.98). There were no differences in graft failure rates (4 studies; <em>p</em> = 0.92) or in overall adverse events (4 studies; <em>p</em> = 0.83) at 24 months post-ACLR as per <em>meta</em>-analysis. Donor site morbidity scores were significantly lower in the QT group (MD −4.67, 95% CI −9.29 to −0.05; 2 studies, 211 patients; <em>p</em> = 0.05, I<sup>2</sup> = 34%).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>There were no differences between QT and HT in PROMs, graft failure rates or overall complications based on low- to moderate-quality evidence. There may possibly be lower donor site morbidity with the QT autograft, however, the evidence is not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56110,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Knee\",\"volume\":\"49 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 226-240\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Knee\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0968016024001005\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Knee","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0968016024001005","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:前交叉韧带重建(ACLR)最常用的是腘绳肌腱(HT)或骨-髌腱-骨(BTB)自体移植物,尽管股四头肌腱(QT)自体移植物最近越来越受欢迎。本系统综述和荟萃分析综述比较了 QT 和 HT 自体移植物在初级 ACLR 中的应用,重点关注随机对照试验 (RCT):在 PROSPERO(CRD42023427339)上注册了一个前瞻性方案。搜索范围包括MEDLINE、Embase和Web of Science,截止日期为2024年2月。仅纳入对比性 RCT。主要结果是国际膝关节文献委员会(IKDC)膝关节主观评估表评分。次要结果包括:其他经过验证的患者报告结果测量(PROMs)、客观力量评分、并发症以及运动和工作恢复情况:从 2,609 篇已确定的文章中,共纳入了 7 篇(n = 474 名患者)。该荟萃分析未发现术后 IKDC 评分(5 篇文章;P = 0.73)、Lysholm 评分(3 项研究;P = 0.80)或 Tegner 活动量表(2 项研究;P = 0.98)存在显著差异。根据荟萃分析,ACLR术后24个月的移植物失败率(4项研究;P = 0.92)或总体不良事件(4项研究;P = 0.83)没有差异。QT组的供体部位发病率评分明显较低(MD -4.67,95% CI -9.29至-0.05;2项研究,211名患者;P = 0.05,I2 = 34%):基于中低质量的证据,QT 和 HT 在 PROMs、移植物失败率或总体并发症方面没有差异。QT 自体移植物的供体部位发病率可能较低,但证据不足以得出明确结论。
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
Quadriceps tendon versus hamstring tendon graft for primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

Background

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is most commonly performed with hamstring tendon (HT) or bone-patellar tendon–bone (BTB) autografts, although the quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft has recently increased in popularity. This systematic review and meta-analysis review compares QT and HT autografts for primary ACLR with a sole focus on randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

A prospective protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023427339). The search included MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science until February 2024. Only comparative RCTs were included. The primary outcome was the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form score. Secondary outcomes included: other validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), objective strength scores, complications, and return to sport and work.

Results

From 2,609 articles identified, seven were included (n = 474 patients). This meta-analysis did not identify a significant difference in post-operative IKDC scores (5 articles; p = 0.73), Lysholm scores (3 studies; p = 0.80) or Tegner activity scales (2 studies; p = 0.98). There were no differences in graft failure rates (4 studies; p = 0.92) or in overall adverse events (4 studies; p = 0.83) at 24 months post-ACLR as per meta-analysis. Donor site morbidity scores were significantly lower in the QT group (MD −4.67, 95% CI −9.29 to −0.05; 2 studies, 211 patients; p = 0.05, I2 = 34%).

Conclusion

There were no differences between QT and HT in PROMs, graft failure rates or overall complications based on low- to moderate-quality evidence. There may possibly be lower donor site morbidity with the QT autograft, however, the evidence is not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions.

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
Knee
Knee 医学-外科
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
5.30%
发文量
171
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The Knee is an international journal publishing studies on the clinical treatment and fundamental biomechanical characteristics of this joint. The aim of the journal is to provide a vehicle relevant to surgeons, biomedical engineers, imaging specialists, materials scientists, rehabilitation personnel and all those with an interest in the knee. The topics covered include, but are not limited to: • Anatomy, physiology, morphology and biochemistry; • Biomechanical studies; • Advances in the development of prosthetic, orthotic and augmentation devices; • Imaging and diagnostic techniques; • Pathology; • Trauma; • Surgery; • Rehabilitation.
期刊最新文献
SPECT-CT may aid in determining which side of a revision stemmed implant problematic total knee replacement is loose when planning revision surgery The third gap – The forgotten space in total knee arthroplasty Biomechanical differences of Asian knee osteoarthritis patients during standing and walking using statistical parametric mapping: A cross-sectional study Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs influence cartilage healing Patellar tendon–Hoffa fat pad interface: From anatomy to high-resolution ultrasound imaging
×
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