Suppr超能文献

双束与单束前交叉韧带重建的长期效果:有差异吗?一项随机对照试验的荟萃分析。

Long term results after double and single bundle ACL reconstruction: Is there any difference? A meta - analysis of randomized controlled trials.

作者信息

Dong Zhenyue, Niu Yingzhen, Qi Jianchao, Song Yifan, Wang Fei

机构信息

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, 050051, Hebei, China.

出版信息

Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2019 Mar;53(2):92-99. doi: 10.1016/j.aott.2018.12.004. Epub 2019 Jan 25.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The double-bundle (DB) techniques are considered to yield better stability of the knee compared with single-bundle (SB) for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, most studies followed up patients in short to middle-term within 5 years, and the longer-term efficacy of SB and DB ACL reconstruction is still beyond consensus. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the longer-term efficacy between double-bundle (DB) and single-bundle (SB) techniques.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant articles published up to November, 2017 with an English language restriction. The searches were limited to human subjects and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In addition, the reference lists of identified articles were checked manually to avoid missing other potentially eligible studies. This process was performed iteratively until no additional articles could be included. The quality of the included studies was assessed using The Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. All statistical analyses were performed with Review Manager soft-ware.

RESULTS

A total of five RCTs involving 294 patients were included finally. No studies were excluded due to insufficient data or low quality. The pooled results showed no statistically significant difference between SB and double bundle DB reconstructions for Lysholm, IKDC, pivot shift, KT scores, and the development of osteoarthritis at a minimum of 5 years. No significant heterogeneity was found across all outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The best available evidence demonstrated that SB and DB techniques could yield similar efficacy for ACL reconstruction. And no superiority was founded in DB ACL reconstruction with a minimal 5-year follow-up. Given that, the relatively simple and proven techniques of SB ACL reconstruction may be preferable for orthopedic surgeons.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, Therapeutic Study.

摘要

目的

与单束(SB)前交叉韧带(ACL)重建术相比,双束(DB)技术被认为能使膝关节获得更好的稳定性。然而,大多数研究对患者进行的是5年内的短期至中期随访,SB和DB ACL重建术的长期疗效仍未达成共识。本荟萃分析的目的是比较双束(DB)和单束(SB)技术的长期疗效。

方法

检索PubMed、EMBASE和Cochrane图书馆数据库,查找截至2017年11月发表的相关英文文章。检索限于人类受试者和随机对照试验(RCT)。此外,手动检查已识别文章的参考文献列表,以避免遗漏其他可能符合条件的研究。此过程反复进行,直到没有其他文章可纳入。使用Cochrane协作网的偏倚风险工具评估纳入研究的质量。所有统计分析均使用Review Manager软件进行。

结果

最终共纳入5项涉及294例患者的RCT。没有研究因数据不足或质量低而被排除。汇总结果显示,在至少5年的随访中,SB和双束DB重建术在Lysholm、IKDC、轴移、KT评分以及骨关节炎的发生方面无统计学显著差异。所有结局均未发现显著异质性。

结论

现有最佳证据表明,SB和DB技术在ACL重建术中疗效相似。在至少5年的随访中,DB ACL重建术未显示出优越性。鉴于此,对于骨科医生而言,相对简单且经过验证的SB ACL重建技术可能更可取。

证据级别

I级,治疗性研究。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3c46/6506993/1e0aa943e47a/gr1.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验