Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association · 2024
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair Results in Similar Patient-Reported Outcome Measures as Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Prospective Comparative Studies.
СтатьяСистематический обзорСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Saad Berreta Rodrigo, Villarreal-Espinosa Juan Bernardo, Pallone Lucas, Cotter Eric, Spaan Jonathan, Manivannan Ashwinee, Jackson Garrett R, Rafael Garcia Jose, Ayala Salvador, Verma Nikhil N, Cole Brian J, Chahla Jorge
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To investigate the patient-reported outcomes (PROs), knee stability, and complications in prospective comparative studies of patients undergoing augmented anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair compared with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).
METHODS: A literature search was performed according to the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Human clinical studies of Level I-II evidence comparing PROs, knee stability, and complications after ACL repair and reconstruction were included, and a qualitative analysis was performed. Excluded studies included those lacking reporting outcomes, studies that performed open ACLR or repair, studies published before the year 2000, and studies with evidence Levels III-IV. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool.
RESULTS: Seven Level I-II studies were retained, comprising 190 ACLR and 221 repairs (75 bridge-enhanced ACL repair [BEAR], 49 suture augmentation [SA], and 97 dynamic intraligamentary stabilization [DIS]). At final follow-up, re-rupture rates varied between 0 and 14% (BEAR) versus 0 and 6% (ACLR) and mean side-to-side differences measured using KT-1000 testing ranged from 1.6 to 1.9 mm (BEAR) versus 1.7 to 3.14 mm (ACLR). For DIS versus ACLR, mean anterior tibial translation values at final follow-up were 1.7 mm (DIS) versus 1.4 mm (ACLR), and re-rupture rates ranged from 20.8% to 29% (DIS) versus 17% to 27.2% (ACLR). For SA versus ACLR, the mean side-to-side difference ranged from 0.2 to 0.39 mm (SA) versus 0.33 to 0.4 mm (ALCR), whereas the re-rupture rates were 10% (SA) versus 0% (ACLR). International Knee Documentation Committee, Tegner, Lysholm, and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome scores across both cohorts exhibited statistically significant, and comparable improvement, from baseline to final follow-up ranging from 1 to 5 years.
CONCLUSIONS: Augmented ACL repair results in similar patient-reported outcome measures in comparison with ACLR. However, augmented ACL repair may be associated with greater rates of failure, given re-rupture rates of up to 14%, 29%, and 10% for BEAR, DIS, and SA, respectively.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, systematic review of Level I-II studies.
METHODS: A literature search was performed according to the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Human clinical studies of Level I-II evidence comparing PROs, knee stability, and complications after ACL repair and reconstruction were included, and a qualitative analysis was performed. Excluded studies included those lacking reporting outcomes, studies that performed open ACLR or repair, studies published before the year 2000, and studies with evidence Levels III-IV. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool.
RESULTS: Seven Level I-II studies were retained, comprising 190 ACLR and 221 repairs (75 bridge-enhanced ACL repair [BEAR], 49 suture augmentation [SA], and 97 dynamic intraligamentary stabilization [DIS]). At final follow-up, re-rupture rates varied between 0 and 14% (BEAR) versus 0 and 6% (ACLR) and mean side-to-side differences measured using KT-1000 testing ranged from 1.6 to 1.9 mm (BEAR) versus 1.7 to 3.14 mm (ACLR). For DIS versus ACLR, mean anterior tibial translation values at final follow-up were 1.7 mm (DIS) versus 1.4 mm (ACLR), and re-rupture rates ranged from 20.8% to 29% (DIS) versus 17% to 27.2% (ACLR). For SA versus ACLR, the mean side-to-side difference ranged from 0.2 to 0.39 mm (SA) versus 0.33 to 0.4 mm (ALCR), whereas the re-rupture rates were 10% (SA) versus 0% (ACLR). International Knee Documentation Committee, Tegner, Lysholm, and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome scores across both cohorts exhibited statistically significant, and comparable improvement, from baseline to final follow-up ranging from 1 to 5 years.
CONCLUSIONS: Augmented ACL repair results in similar patient-reported outcome measures in comparison with ACLR. However, augmented ACL repair may be associated with greater rates of failure, given re-rupture rates of up to 14%, 29%, and 10% for BEAR, DIS, and SA, respectively.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, systematic review of Level I-II studies.