Kunze Kyle N, Pareek Ayoosh, Nwachukwu Benedict U, Ranawat Anil S, Pearle Andrew D, Kelly Bryan T, Allen Answorth A, Williams Riley J
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, USA.
Sports Medicine Institute, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, USA.
Orthop J Sports Med. 2024 Jun 11;12(6):23259671241253591. doi: 10.1177/23259671241253591. eCollection 2024 Jun.
Primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair has gained renewed interest in select centers for patients with proximal or midsubstance ACL tears. Therefore, it is important to reassess contemporary clinical outcomes of ACL repair to determine whether a clinical benefit exists over the gold standard of ACL reconstruction (ACLR).
To (1) perform a meta-analysis of comparative trials to determine whether differences in clinical outcomes and adverse events exist between ACL repair versus ACLR and (2) synthesize the midterm outcomes of available trials.
Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.
The PubMed, OVID/Medline, and Cochrane databases were queried in August 2023 for prospective and retrospective clinical trials comparing ACL repair and ACLR. Data pertaining to tear location, surgical technique, adverse events, and clinical outcome measures were recorded. DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models were constructed to quantitatively evaluate the association between ACL repair/ACLR, adverse events, and clinical outcomes. A subanalysis of minimum 5-year outcomes was performed.
Twelve studies (893 patients; 464 ACLR and 429 ACL repair) were included. Random-effects models demonstrated a higher relative risk (RR) of recurrent instability/clinical failure (RR = 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.57; = .032), revision ACLR (RR = 1.63; 95% CI, 1.03-2.59; = .039), and hardware removal (RR = 4.94; 95% CI, 2.10-11.61; = .0003) in patients who underwent primary ACL repair versus ACLR. The RR of reoperations and complications (knee-related) were not significantly different between groups. No significant differences were observed when comparing patient-reported outcome scores. In studies with minimum 5-year outcomes, no significant differences in adverse events or Lysholm scores were observed.
In contemporary comparative trials of ACL repair versus ACLR, the RR of clinical failure, revision surgery due to ACL rerupture, and hardware removal was greater for primary ACL repair compared with ACLR. There were no observed differences in patient-reported outcome scores, reoperations, or knee-related complications between approaches. In the limited literature reporting on minimum 5-year outcomes, significant differences in adverse events or the International Knee Documentation Committee score were not observed.
对于前交叉韧带(ACL)近端或韧带中部撕裂的患者,选择性中心对一期ACL修复的兴趣再度兴起。因此,重新评估ACL修复的当代临床结果以确定其是否比ACL重建(ACLR)的金标准具有临床优势非常重要。
(1)对比较试验进行荟萃分析,以确定ACL修复与ACLR在临床结果和不良事件方面是否存在差异;(2)综合现有试验的中期结果。
系统评价;证据等级为3级。
2023年8月检索了PubMed、OVID/Medline和Cochrane数据库,以查找比较ACL修复和ACLR的前瞻性和回顾性临床试验。记录与撕裂部位、手术技术、不良事件和临床结局指标相关的数据。构建DerSimonian-Laird随机效应模型,以定量评估ACL修复/ACLR、不良事件和临床结果之间的关联。对至少5年的结果进行了亚组分析。
纳入了12项研究(893例患者;464例行ACLR,429例行ACL修复)。随机效应模型显示,与ACLR相比,一期ACL修复患者复发性不稳定/临床失败(相对风险[RR]=1.64;95%置信区间[CI],1.04-2.57;P=.032)、再次进行ACLR(RR=1.63;95%CI,1.03-2.59;P=.039)和取出内固定物(RR=4.94;95%CI,2.10-11.61;P=.0003)的RR更高。两组再次手术和并发症(与膝关节相关)的RR无显著差异。比较患者报告的结局评分时未观察到显著差异。在至少有5年结果的研究中,未观察到不良事件或Lysholm评分有显著差异。
在当代ACL修复与ACLR的比较试验中,与ACLR相比,一期ACL修复临床失败、因ACL再次断裂进行翻修手术和取出内固定物的RR更高。两种方法在患者报告的结局评分、再次手术或膝关节相关并发症方面未观察到差异。在报告至少5年结果的有限文献中,未观察到不良事件或国际膝关节文献委员会评分有显著差异。