Fu Chun-Wei, Chen Wei-Cheng, Lu Yung-Chang
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mackay Memorial Hospital, No. 92, Sec. 2, Zhongshan N. Rd., Zhongshan Dist., Taipei City, 104, Taiwan, R. O. C..
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mackay Memorial Hospital, No. 92, Sec. 2, Zhongshan N. Rd., Zhongshan Dist., Taipei City, 104, Taiwan, R. O. C.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020 Jul 7;21(1):445. doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-03471-3.
To compare the clinical results of all-inside anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using suspensory cortical button fixation and full tibial tunnel drilling.
Systematic searches were conducted of published literature up to November 2019 on PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for studies comparing all-inside ACLR using suspensory cortical button fixation and full tibial tunnel ACLR. Two reviewers independently determined eligibility, extracted the outcome data, and assessed the risk of bias of the eligible studies. The clinical outcome and graft reruptures were pooled by using random effects with mean differences and risk ratios for continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively.
A total of nine studies (five randomized controlled trials and four comparative studies) involving 613 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The postoperative functional outcome, knee laxity measured with arthrometer, and graft reruptures were comparable between patients with all-inside ACLR using suspensory cortical button fixation and full tibial tunnel ACLR. However, a significantly greater thickness of autologous tendon was used and less change in drilling tunnel diameter was noted in patients with suspensory cortical button graft fixation.
All-inside ACLR with suspensory cortical button fixation was not clinically superior to full tibial tunnel ACLR with interference screw fixation in functional outcomes, knee laxity measured with arthrometer, or rerupture rate. However, the advantage of using suspensory cortical button fixation was that a thicker graft could be used for reconstruction, and brought less tibia tunnel widening compared with bioabsorbable interference screw fixation.
比较采用悬吊皮质纽扣固定和全胫骨隧道钻孔的全关节镜下前交叉韧带重建术(ACLR)的临床效果。
对截至2019年11月发表在PubMed、Embase和Cochrane上的文献进行系统检索,以查找比较采用悬吊皮质纽扣固定的全关节镜下ACLR和全胫骨隧道ACLR的研究。两名研究者独立确定纳入标准,提取结果数据,并评估纳入研究的偏倚风险。分别采用随机效应模型合并连续变量的均数差和二分变量的风险比,汇总临床结局和移植物再断裂情况。
荟萃分析共纳入9项研究(5项随机对照试验和4项比较研究),涉及613例患者。采用悬吊皮质纽扣固定的全关节镜下ACLR患者与全胫骨隧道ACLR患者术后功能结局、用关节测量仪测量的膝关节松弛度及移植物再断裂情况相当。然而,采用悬吊皮质纽扣移植物固定的患者使用的自体肌腱厚度明显更大,且钻孔隧道直径变化更小。
在功能结局、用关节测量仪测量的膝关节松弛度或再断裂率方面,采用悬吊皮质纽扣固定的全关节镜下ACLR在临床上并不优于采用可吸收挤压螺钉固定的全胫骨隧道ACLR。然而,采用悬吊皮质纽扣固定的优点是可使用更厚的移植物进行重建,且与可吸收挤压螺钉固定相比,胫骨隧道增宽更小。