前十字韧带重建术后缝合增量与移植物失败和临床效果的关系:对至少随访两年的对比研究进行系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 3.3 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy Pub Date : 2024-11-10 DOI:10.1002/ksa.12537
Yitian Gao, Weili Shi, Zhiyu Zhang, Wenbin Bai, Yuping Yang, Yong Ma, Cheng Wang, Jian Wang, Xi Gong, Jianquan Wang
{"title":"前十字韧带重建术后缝合增量与移植物失败和临床效果的关系:对至少随访两年的对比研究进行系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Yitian Gao, Weili Shi, Zhiyu Zhang, Wenbin Bai, Yuping Yang, Yong Ma, Cheng Wang, Jian Wang, Xi Gong, Jianquan Wang","doi":"10.1002/ksa.12537","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare graft failure, nonrevision reoperation, complication, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and return to sports (RTS) between patients who underwent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with and without suture augmentation (SA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane, Embase and Web of Science databases from the inception of databases to 18 April 2024, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies comparing clinical outcomes of SA- and standard ACLR with a minimum 2-year follow-up were included. Data extraction and quality appraisal were performed by two researchers independently.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight retrospective cohort studies were included, with a total of 408 patients receiving SA-ACLR and 443 patients receiving standard ACLR. A meta-analysis of graft failure demonstrated a 62% relative risk reduction (RR [risk ratio], 0.38 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.19-0.73]; p = .004) in those receiving SA-ACLR compared with standard ACLR. An age-related heterogeneity in graft failure reduction was detected in the subgroup analysis, which was more pronounced in studies with mean ages of <20 years compared with ≥20 years (p = .05; I<sup>2</sup> = 73.9%). No significant difference was observed in nonrevision reoperation or complication rates. No clinically relevant difference was observed in PROMs. SA-ACLR was associated with a significantly higher RTS rate compared with the standard ACLR (RR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.00-1.24]; p = .04), whereas no significant difference was observed in time to RTS.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>SA-ACLR is associated with a reduced graft failure rate and increased RTS rate compared with standard ACLR without additional reoperations or complications. However, confidence in the evidence is limited by substantial heterogeneity. Future studies with a higher level of evidence are warranted to validate the benefit of SA and to determine the indication for different risk populations.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III.</p>","PeriodicalId":17880,"journal":{"name":"Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Association of suture augmentation with graft failure and clinical outcomes following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies with a minimum 2-year follow-up.\",\"authors\":\"Yitian Gao, Weili Shi, Zhiyu Zhang, Wenbin Bai, Yuping Yang, Yong Ma, Cheng Wang, Jian Wang, Xi Gong, Jianquan Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ksa.12537\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare graft failure, nonrevision reoperation, complication, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and return to sports (RTS) between patients who underwent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with and without suture augmentation (SA).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane, Embase and Web of Science databases from the inception of databases to 18 April 2024, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies comparing clinical outcomes of SA- and standard ACLR with a minimum 2-year follow-up were included. Data extraction and quality appraisal were performed by two researchers independently.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight retrospective cohort studies were included, with a total of 408 patients receiving SA-ACLR and 443 patients receiving standard ACLR. A meta-analysis of graft failure demonstrated a 62% relative risk reduction (RR [risk ratio], 0.38 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.19-0.73]; p = .004) in those receiving SA-ACLR compared with standard ACLR. An age-related heterogeneity in graft failure reduction was detected in the subgroup analysis, which was more pronounced in studies with mean ages of <20 years compared with ≥20 years (p = .05; I<sup>2</sup> = 73.9%). No significant difference was observed in nonrevision reoperation or complication rates. No clinically relevant difference was observed in PROMs. SA-ACLR was associated with a significantly higher RTS rate compared with the standard ACLR (RR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.00-1.24]; p = .04), whereas no significant difference was observed in time to RTS.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>SA-ACLR is associated with a reduced graft failure rate and increased RTS rate compared with standard ACLR without additional reoperations or complications. However, confidence in the evidence is limited by substantial heterogeneity. Future studies with a higher level of evidence are warranted to validate the benefit of SA and to determine the indication for different risk populations.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17880,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/ksa.12537\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"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":"Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ksa.12537","RegionNum":2,"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:比较前交叉韧带重建术(ACLR)采用缝合增强术(SA)和不采用缝合增强术(SA)的患者的移植物失败率、非翻修再手术率、并发症、患者报告结果指标(PROMs)和恢复运动能力(RTS):根据《系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目》(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses)指南,在 PubMed、Cochrane、Embase 和 Web of Science 数据库中进行了系统检索,检索时间为数据库建立之初至 2024 年 4 月 18 日。纳入的研究比较了SA和标准ACLR的临床效果,随访时间至少为2年。数据提取和质量评估由两名研究人员独立完成:结果:共纳入了 8 项回顾性队列研究,接受 SA-ACLR 的患者共 408 人,接受标准 ACLR 的患者共 443 人。移植失败的荟萃分析显示,与标准 ACLR 相比,接受 SA-ACLR 的患者相对风险降低了 62%(RR [风险比],0.38 [95% 置信区间 {CI},0.19-0.73];P = .004)。在亚组分析中发现,在减少移植物失败方面存在与年龄相关的异质性,这在平均年龄为 2 = 73.9% 的研究中更为明显。)在非翻修再手术率或并发症发生率方面没有观察到明显差异。在 PROMs 方面未观察到临床相关性差异。与标准 ACLR 相比,SA-ACLR 的 RTS 率明显更高(RR,1.12 [95% CI,1.00-1.24];P = .04),而在 RTS 时间方面未观察到显著差异:结论:与标准 ACLR 相比,SA-ACLR 可降低移植物失败率,提高 RTS 率,且不会增加再次手术或并发症。然而,证据的可信度因大量异质性而受到限制。未来有必要进行证据等级更高的研究,以验证SA的益处,并确定不同风险人群的适应症:证据等级:三级。
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
Association of suture augmentation with graft failure and clinical outcomes following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies with a minimum 2-year follow-up.

Purpose: To compare graft failure, nonrevision reoperation, complication, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and return to sports (RTS) between patients who underwent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with and without suture augmentation (SA).

Methods: A systematic search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane, Embase and Web of Science databases from the inception of databases to 18 April 2024, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies comparing clinical outcomes of SA- and standard ACLR with a minimum 2-year follow-up were included. Data extraction and quality appraisal were performed by two researchers independently.

Results: Eight retrospective cohort studies were included, with a total of 408 patients receiving SA-ACLR and 443 patients receiving standard ACLR. A meta-analysis of graft failure demonstrated a 62% relative risk reduction (RR [risk ratio], 0.38 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.19-0.73]; p = .004) in those receiving SA-ACLR compared with standard ACLR. An age-related heterogeneity in graft failure reduction was detected in the subgroup analysis, which was more pronounced in studies with mean ages of <20 years compared with ≥20 years (p = .05; I2 = 73.9%). No significant difference was observed in nonrevision reoperation or complication rates. No clinically relevant difference was observed in PROMs. SA-ACLR was associated with a significantly higher RTS rate compared with the standard ACLR (RR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.00-1.24]; p = .04), whereas no significant difference was observed in time to RTS.

Conclusion: SA-ACLR is associated with a reduced graft failure rate and increased RTS rate compared with standard ACLR without additional reoperations or complications. However, confidence in the evidence is limited by substantial heterogeneity. Future studies with a higher level of evidence are warranted to validate the benefit of SA and to determine the indication for different risk populations.

Level of evidence: Level III.

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
8.10
自引率
18.40%
发文量
418
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Few other areas of orthopedic surgery and traumatology have undergone such a dramatic evolution in the last 10 years as knee surgery, arthroscopy and sports traumatology. Ranked among the top 33% of journals in both Orthopedics and Sports Sciences, the goal of this European journal is to publish papers about innovative knee surgery, sports trauma surgery and arthroscopy. Each issue features a series of peer-reviewed articles that deal with diagnosis and management and with basic research. Each issue also contains at least one review article about an important clinical problem. Case presentations or short notes about technical innovations are also accepted for publication. The articles cover all aspects of knee surgery and all types of sports trauma; in addition, epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment and prevention, and all types of arthroscopy (not only the knee but also the shoulder, elbow, wrist, hip, ankle, etc.) are addressed. Articles on new diagnostic techniques such as MRI and ultrasound and high-quality articles about the biomechanics of joints, muscles and tendons are included. Although this is largely a clinical journal, it is also open to basic research with clinical relevance. Because the journal is supported by a distinguished European Editorial Board, assisted by an international Advisory Board, you can be assured that the journal maintains the highest standards. Official Clinical Journal of the European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy (ESSKA).
期刊最新文献
Issue Information The ankle sprain and the domino effect Higher isokinetic quadriceps peak force is associated with a patient-acceptable symptom-state 1 and 3 years after ACL reconstruction. Adapting the Dejour classification of trochlear dysplasia from qualitative radiograph- and CT-based assessments to quantitative MRI-based measurements. Letter to the Editor concerning 'The Calf Raise App shows good concurrent validity compared with a linear encoder in measuring total concentric work': Let's not compare apples to oranges.
×
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