Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong Province, China.
Department of Orthopedics, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong Province, China.
Arthroscopy. 2024 Feb;40(2):481-494. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2023.05.017. Epub 2023 May 23.
To evaluate outcomes of arthroscopic single-bundle (SB) versus anatomic double-bundle (ADB) anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) in adults through a synthesis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We hypothesized that SB and ADB methods would lead to similar outcomes after reconstruction of ACL rupture.
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses checklist guided our reporting. To identify RCTs that compared SB and ADB reconstructions, a thorough literature search was conducted of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and Web of Science. The methodologic quality of each included study was independently assessed by 2 authors using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. The Anatomic ACL Reconstruction Scoring Checklist (AARSC) was used to screen the eligibility of each study's operative approaches. Twelve clinical outcomes were investigated through pooled analyses conducted using Review Manager 5.3.
This meta-analysis synthesized 13 RCTs comparing postoperative outcomes between ADB and SB reconstructions of ACLs. After a minimum follow-up of 12 months, ADB and SB technique resulted in similar subjective clinical outcomes, including the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score, Lysholm score, Tegner activity score, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score sports subscale. Similarly, no statistically significant outcomes were found for objective outcomes such as International Knee Documentation Committee objective grade, pivot-shift test, Lachman test, side-to-side difference, extension deficit, flexion deficit, and osteoarthritis change. However, patients who underwent SB reconstruction had significantly greater complication rates than those that underwent ADB reconstruction.
When an ACLR approach meets a minimal total AARSC score of 8, ADB and SB techniques may result in similar subjective and objective outcomes, but the ADB technique may lead to lower complication rates following surgery. We recommend that surgeons favor ADB ACLR, as guided by the AARSC.
Level I, systematic review and meta-analysis of Level I randomized controlled trials.
通过综合随机对照试验(RCT)评估关节镜下单束(SB)与解剖双束(ADB)前交叉韧带重建(ACLR)的成人治疗效果。我们假设 SB 和 ADB 方法在 ACL 断裂重建后会产生相似的结果。
本研究采用系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目清单进行报告。为了确定比较 SB 和 ADB 重建的 RCT,我们对 PubMed、Embase、Cochrane 图书馆和 Web of Science 进行了全面的文献检索。两位作者使用 Cochrane 协作风险偏倚工具独立评估了每项纳入研究的方法学质量。使用解剖 ACL 重建评分检查表(AARSC)筛选每项研究手术方法的资格。使用 Review Manager 5.3 进行汇总分析,研究了 12 项临床结果。
本荟萃分析综合了 13 项 RCT,比较了 ADB 和 SB 治疗 ACL 术后结果。在至少 12 个月的随访后,ADB 和 SB 技术导致相似的主观临床结果,包括国际膝关节文献委员会主观评分、Lysholm 评分、Tegner 活动评分和膝关节损伤和骨关节炎结果评分运动亚量表。同样,在客观结果方面,如国际膝关节文献委员会客观分级、髌股关节移位试验、Lachman 试验、侧间差异、伸展缺陷、屈曲缺陷和骨关节炎变化,没有发现统计学上显著的结果。然而,接受 SB 重建的患者的并发症发生率明显高于接受 ADB 重建的患者。
当 ACLR 方法满足最小的 AARSC 总评分 8 分时,ADB 和 SB 技术可能会导致相似的主观和客观结果,但 ADB 技术可能会降低术后并发症发生率。我们建议外科医生根据 AARSC 倾向于 ADB ACLR。
一级,基于一级随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析。