Department of Orthopedics, Orthopedic Research Institute, West China Hospital, Sichuan University.
Rheumatism Immunology Laboratory, West China Hospital, Sichuan University.
J Sports Sci Med. 2021 Mar 8;20(2):237-249. doi: 10.52082/jssm.2021.237. eCollection 2021 Jun.
This study compared clinical outcomes obtained after single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using the anteromedial (AM) and transtibial (TT) techniques, which comprise the conventional transtibial (cTT) and modified transtibial (mTT) techniques. This study included clinical randomized controlled trials and prospective and retrospective controlled trials with AM and TT techniques from the PubMed and Embase databases and the Cochrane Library. All databases were searched from January 2010 to July 2020. Two independent evaluators verified the quality of the included studies using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Outcome measures analysed included the Lachman test, pivot-shift test, side-to-side difference (SSD), Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) grade and score. Ten randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 16 prospective and retrospective controlled trials were included with a total of 2202 patients. There were 1180 patients and 1022 patients in the AM and TT groups, respectively. Compared to the cTT group, superior postoperative results were observed in the AM group based on the negative rate of the Lachman test and the pivot-shift test, IKDC grade and score, Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale and SSD (p < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference between the AM and mTT groups (p > 0.05). Compared to the conventional TT technique, the AM technique exhibited superior clinical outcomes. Nevertheless, the modified TT and AM techniques had comparable results. With neither of the techniques (mTT or AM) producing significantly superior outcomes, surgeons can choose either of them depending on their preferences.
本研究比较了前交叉韧带(ACL)重建中单束前内侧(AM)和经胫骨(TT)技术的临床结果,这两种技术包括传统经胫骨(cTT)和改良经胫骨(mTT)技术。本研究纳入了来自 PubMed 和 Embase 数据库以及 Cochrane 图书馆的 AM 和 TT 技术的临床随机对照试验以及前瞻性和回顾性对照试验。所有数据库均从 2010 年 1 月至 2020 年 7 月进行检索。两位独立评估者使用 Cochrane 协作风险偏倚工具和纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表(NOS)评估纳入研究的质量。分析的结果包括 Lachman 试验、前抽屉试验、侧移差(SSD)、Lysholm 评分、Tegner 活动量表、国际膝关节文献委员会(IKDC)分级和评分。纳入了 10 项随机对照试验(RCT)和 16 项前瞻性和回顾性对照试验,共纳入 2202 例患者。AM 组和 TT 组分别有 1180 例和 1022 例患者。与 cTT 组相比,AM 组的 Lachman 试验和前抽屉试验阴性率、IKDC 分级和评分、Lysholm 评分、Tegner 活动量表和 SSD 更优(p<0.05)。然而,AM 组和 mTT 组之间无显著差异(p>0.05)。与传统 TT 技术相比,AM 技术表现出更优的临床结果。然而,改良 TT 和 AM 技术的结果相似。由于两种技术(mTT 或 AM)均未产生明显更优的结果,因此术者可根据自己的偏好选择其中之一。