Zheng Fuwen, Gao Jiahao, Wang Chenyu, Zheng Xu, Tang Jinshuo, Zhang Jinrui, Zuo Jianlin
Department of Orthopedics China-Japan Union Hospital of Jilin University Changchun Jilin China.
Wenzhou Medical College Affiliated Yueqing Hospital Yueqing Zhejiang China.
J Exp Orthop. 2025 Aug 5;12(3):e70390. doi: 10.1002/jeo2.70390. eCollection 2025 Jul.
To evaluate whether the joint function, stability and safety of tibial supplementary fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is superior compared with tibial screw fixation alone.
PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched, tracking until 12 April 2025. Eligible studies included published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and low-risk cohort studies comparing clinical outcomes and complications between tibial screw interference with supplementary fixation (Group I) and tibial screw interference alone or with a sheath (Group II). RCTs were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, while cohort studies were evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Methodological index for non-randomized studies. Model selection (random or fixed-effects) was based on data heterogeneity.
This meta-analysis included eight studies with 943 patients (Group I: 386, Group II: 557). Group I showed no significant differences in side-to-side difference (SSD) in the sheath subgroup at 24 months, SSD <3 mm at 9.1 kg at 12 and 24 months, or manual maximum testing at 24 months, Pivot test at 8-12 and 24 months, Lachman test at 8-12 months, International Knee Documentation Committee objective and subjective score at 24 months compared to Group II. Group I demonstrated statistically significant reductions in SSD (mean difference: -1.02; 95% CI: -1.79 to -0.25; = 0.009) in the no-sheath subgroup and lower Lachman test positivity (odds ratio [OR] = 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13-0.71; = 0.01) at 24 months. Ligament retear rates were similar; however, Group I experienced a substantially higher incidence of kneeling pain (OR = 6.28; 95% CI: 1.86-2.25; < 0.01), an outcome that could adversely affect patient comfort and long-term functional recovery.
Enhanced supplementary tibial fixation with soft tissue autografts and allografts offers similar joint function and a modest enhancement of stability compared to tibial interference screw fixation alone, but is associated with a higher incidence of pain.
Level III, retrospective cohort studies have been analysed, alongside RCTs, and thus this is the level of evidence.
评估在胫骨前交叉韧带重建术中,胫骨辅助固定相较于单纯胫骨螺钉固定,在关节功能、稳定性和安全性方面是否更具优势。
检索了PubMed、Cochrane图书馆、EMBASE和Web of Science,检索截止至2025年4月12日。符合条件的研究包括已发表的随机对照试验(RCT)和低风险队列研究,比较胫骨螺钉辅助固定(I组)与单纯胫骨螺钉固定或带护套的胫骨螺钉固定(II组)之间的临床结局和并发症。使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估RCT,同时用纽卡斯尔-渥太华量表和非随机研究方法学指数评估队列研究。模型选择(随机或固定效应)基于数据异质性。
该荟萃分析纳入了8项研究,共943例患者(I组:386例,II组:557例)。I组在24个月时护套亚组的左右差异(SSD)、12个月和24个月时9.1kg负重下SSD<3mm、24个月时手动最大测试、8 - 12个月和24个月时的枢轴试验、8 - 12个月时的拉赫曼试验、24个月时的国际膝关节文献委员会客观和主观评分与II组相比无显著差异。I组在无护套亚组中SSD有统计学显著降低(平均差:-1.02;95%置信区间:-1.79至-0.25;P = 0.009),且在24个月时拉赫曼试验阳性率较低(优势比[OR]=0.30;95%置信区间[CI]:0.13 - 0.71;P = 0.01)。韧带再撕裂率相似;然而,I组跪痛发生率显著更高(OR = 6.28;95%置信区间:1.86 - 2.25;P < 0.01),这一结果可能对患者舒适度和长期功能恢复产生不利影响。
与单纯胫骨干涉螺钉固定相比,使用自体和异体软组织增强胫骨辅助固定提供了相似的关节功能并适度增强了稳定性,但疼痛发生率更高。
III级,对回顾性队列研究以及RCT进行了分析,因此这就是证据水平。