Medicine · 2023
Medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction appears to be a better treatment than repair, proximal realignment, or conservative management for primary patellar dislocation: A network meta-analysis.
СтатьяNetwork Meta-AnalysisНазвание 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.
Yoo Jae-Doo, Huh Min-Hwan, Lee Chan-Woo, Roh Young-Hak, D'Lima Darryl D, Shin Young-Soo
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the functional outcomes and re-dislocation rates of medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction, MPFL repair, combined proximal realignment (CPR), and conservative management for primary patellar dislocation by conducting a systematic literature search of the available studies. The hypothesis was that MPFL repair and MPFL reconstruction would be better options for treating primary patellar dislocation.
METHODS: Randomized controlled trials or prospective studies of primary patellar dislocation treated with MPFL reconstruction, MPFL repair, CPR, or conservative management were identified from the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases through December 31, 2021. A total of 626 patients met the prespecified inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of each study was assessed using a risk of bias table, Detsky quality index, and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The end-point data collected included comparisons of the mean in functional scores on knee outcomes scales and the number of patients who experienced re-dislocation. A network meta-analysis of the relevant literature was performed to investigate which treatment showed better outcomes.
RESULTS: In total, 10 trials were included in this study. There was no statistically significant difference in the subgroup analysis in terms of the functional outcomes among MPFL reconstruction, MPFL repair, CPR, and conservative management. However, MPFL reconstruction showed statistically significantly better outcomes than MPFL repair, CPR, or conservative management in terms of the re-dislocation rate. Additionally, surface under the cumulative ranking curve percentage showed that MPFL reconstruction had a lower probability of re-dislocation than MPFL repair even though there was no significant difference (0.24, 95% confidence interval: 0.02-2.91).
CONCLUSION: Using a network meta-analysis, this meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in functional outcomes in a subgroup analysis. In re-dislocation subgroup analysis, MPFL repair and MPFL reconstruction produced significantly better results than other treatments. Also, surface under the cumulative ranking curve percentage showed that MPFL reconstruction had a lower probability of re-dislocation than MPFL repair.
METHODS: Randomized controlled trials or prospective studies of primary patellar dislocation treated with MPFL reconstruction, MPFL repair, CPR, or conservative management were identified from the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases through December 31, 2021. A total of 626 patients met the prespecified inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of each study was assessed using a risk of bias table, Detsky quality index, and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The end-point data collected included comparisons of the mean in functional scores on knee outcomes scales and the number of patients who experienced re-dislocation. A network meta-analysis of the relevant literature was performed to investigate which treatment showed better outcomes.
RESULTS: In total, 10 trials were included in this study. There was no statistically significant difference in the subgroup analysis in terms of the functional outcomes among MPFL reconstruction, MPFL repair, CPR, and conservative management. However, MPFL reconstruction showed statistically significantly better outcomes than MPFL repair, CPR, or conservative management in terms of the re-dislocation rate. Additionally, surface under the cumulative ranking curve percentage showed that MPFL reconstruction had a lower probability of re-dislocation than MPFL repair even though there was no significant difference (0.24, 95% confidence interval: 0.02-2.91).
CONCLUSION: Using a network meta-analysis, this meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in functional outcomes in a subgroup analysis. In re-dislocation subgroup analysis, MPFL repair and MPFL reconstruction produced significantly better results than other treatments. Also, surface under the cumulative ranking curve percentage showed that MPFL reconstruction had a lower probability of re-dislocation than MPFL repair.