Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, No.1838, Guangzhou Avenue North, Guangzhou, 510515, People's Republic of China.
Int Orthop. 2013 Feb;37(2):213-26. doi: 10.1007/s00264-012-1651-1. Epub 2012 Sep 12.
The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the results of arthroscopic single-bundle and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.
We systematically searched electronic databases to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which arthroscopic single-bundle was compared with double-bundle for ACL reconstruction. The search strategy followed the requirements of the Cochrane Library Handbook. The outcomes of these studies were analysed in terms of graft failures, Lysholm score, negative pivot-shift test, KT1000 arthrometer measurements, knee extensor and flexor peak torques, knee extension and flexion deficit, and subjective and objective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) final score. Methodological quality was assessed and data were extracted independently. Standard mean difference (SMD) or odds ratio (OR) with 95 % confidence interval (CI) was calculated by a fixed effects or random effects model. Heterogeneity across the studies was assessed with the I-square and chi-square statistic. Forest plots were also generated.
We identified 17 RCTs comprising 1,381 patients who were treated by arthroscopic single-bundle versus double-bundle ACL reconstruction. The results of meta-analysis of these studies showed that arthroscopic double-bundle reconstruction was associated with a lower risk of graft failures (P=0.002) and a lower rate of positive pivot-shift test (P<0.0001). Compared with single-bundle reconstruction, double-bundle reconstruction had a lower KT1000 arthrometer measurement (P<0.00001), a lower knee extension deficit (P=0.006) and a higher subjective IKDC score (P=0.03). There was no statistically significant difference between single-bundle and double-bundle reconstruction in Lysholm score (P=0.91), knee extensor peak torques (P=0.97), knee flexor peak torques (P=0.96), knee flexion deficit (P=0.30) and objective IKDC score (P=0.18).
Considering the more favourable outcomes of graft failures, knee joint stability and knee joint function in double-bundle reconstruction, we concluded that arthroscopic double-bundle reconstruction should be considered as the primary treatment in ACL reconstruction.
本荟萃分析旨在比较关节镜下单束和双束前交叉韧带(ACL)重建的结果。
我们系统地检索电子数据库,以确定比较关节镜下单束和双束 ACL 重建的随机对照试验(RCT)。搜索策略遵循 Cochrane 图书馆手册的要求。这些研究的结果根据移植物失败、Lysholm 评分、阴性枢轴转移试验、KT1000 关节测量仪测量值、膝关节伸肌和屈肌峰值扭矩、膝关节伸肌和屈肌缺损以及主观和客观国际膝关节文献委员会(IKDC)最终评分进行分析。独立评估方法学质量并提取数据。使用固定效应或随机效应模型计算标准均数差(SMD)或比值比(OR)及其 95%置信区间(CI)。使用 I 平方和卡方统计量评估研究之间的异质性。还生成了森林图。
我们确定了 17 项 RCT,共纳入 1381 名接受关节镜下单束与双束 ACL 重建的患者。这些研究的荟萃分析结果表明,关节镜下双束重建与移植物失败的风险较低相关(P=0.002),并且阳性枢轴转移试验的发生率较低(P<0.0001)。与单束重建相比,双束重建的 KT1000 关节测量仪测量值较低(P<0.00001),膝关节伸展缺损较小(P=0.006),主观 IKDC 评分较高(P=0.03)。单束和双束重建在 Lysholm 评分(P=0.91)、膝关节伸肌峰值扭矩(P=0.97)、膝关节屈肌峰值扭矩(P=0.96)、膝关节屈曲缺损(P=0.30)和客观 IKDC 评分(P=0.18)方面无统计学显著差异。
考虑到双束重建在移植物失败、膝关节稳定性和膝关节功能方面的更好结果,我们得出结论,关节镜下双束重建应作为 ACL 重建的主要治疗方法。