Chen Haitao, Chen Biao, Tie Kai, Fu Zhengdao, Chen Liaobin
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430071, China.
J Orthop Surg Res. 2018 Mar 10;13(1):50. doi: 10.1186/s13018-018-0753-x.
Both single-bundle (SB) and double-bundle (DB) techniques were widely used in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction recently. Nevertheless, up to now, no consensus has been reached on whether the DB technique was superior to the SB technique. Moreover, follow-up of the included studies in the published meta-analyses is mostly short term. Our study aims to compare the mid- to long-term outcome of SB and DB ACL reconstruction concerning knee stability, clinical function, graft failure rate, and osteoarthritis (OA) changes.
This study followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to October 2017. The study included only a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that compared SB and DB ACL reconstruction and that had a minimum of 5-year follow-up. The Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias for all included studies. Stata/SE 12.0 was used to perform a meta-analysis of the clinical outcome.
Five RCTs were included, with a total of 294 patients: 150 patients and 144 patients in the DB group and the SB group, respectively. Assessing knee stability, there was no statistical difference in side-to-side difference and negative rate of the pivot-shift test. Considering functional outcome, no significant difference was found in proportion with International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) grade A, IKDC score, Lysholm scores, and Tegner scores. As for graft failure rate and OA changes, no significant difference was found between the DB group and the SB group.
The DB technique was not superior to the SB technique in autologous ACL reconstruction regarding knee stability, clinical function, graft failure rate, and OA changes with a mid- to long-term follow-up.
单束(SB)和双束(DB)技术近来都广泛应用于前交叉韧带(ACL)重建。然而,截至目前,关于DB技术是否优于SB技术尚未达成共识。此外,已发表的荟萃分析中纳入研究的随访大多是短期的。我们的研究旨在比较SB和DB ACL重建在膝关节稳定性、临床功能、移植物失败率和骨关节炎(OA)变化方面的中长期结果。
本研究遵循PRISMA(系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目)指南。从数据库建立至2017年10月检索了PubMed、Embase和Cochrane图书馆。该研究仅纳入比较SB和DB ACL重建且至少有5年随访的随机对照试验(RCT)。使用Cochrane协作网的偏倚风险工具评估所有纳入研究的偏倚风险。使用Stata/SE 12.0对临床结果进行荟萃分析。
纳入5项RCT,共294例患者:DB组150例,SB组144例。评估膝关节稳定性时,两侧差异和轴移试验阴性率无统计学差异。考虑功能结果,国际膝关节文献委员会(IKDC)A级比例、IKDC评分、Lysholm评分和Tegner评分无显著差异。至于移植物失败率和OA变化,DB组和SB组之间无显著差异。
在中长期随访中,DB技术在自体ACL重建的膝关节稳定性、临床功能、移植物失败率和OA变化方面并不优于SB技术。