Journal of orthopaedics · 2024
Repair with suture tape augmentation vs. reconstruction for ACL tears: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Conde Rodrigo Arruda, Richard da Silva Oliveira Filho André, Machinski Elcio, Furtado da Cruz Vinícius, Varone Bruno Butturi, Gobbi Riccardo Gomes, Helito Camilo Partezani, Leal Daniel Peixoto
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Interest in repairing ruptured anterior cruciate ligaments (ACL) has resurged, with suture tape augmentation (internal brace, ACL-IB) emerging as a prominent technique. However, the efficacy of ACL-IB compared to ACL reconstruction (ACL-R) remains unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis to address this gap.
METHODS: Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, a search to PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central for studies comparing ACL-IB to ACL-R was performed. The main endpoints were patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and failure rate. Muscle and joint function and surgery time were also assessed. Statistical analysis was performed by Review Manager 5.1.7.
RESULTS: Nine studies comprising 1049 patients were included; 381 (36.3 %) underwent ACL-IB. Hamstring autografts were used for ACL-R in 421 patients (63.0 %). Most studies (6 of 8) reported follow-up longer than two years. The failure rate was higher in the ACL-IB group (risk ratio 3.62; 95 % CI 1.16 to 11.33; p = 0.03; I2: 52 %). No significant difference was found between groups for PROs, except KOOS Symptoms, which was significantly improved with ACL-IB (mean difference 2.49; 95 % CI 0.05 to 4.92; p = 0.05; I2: 0 %). ACL-IB resulted in stronger hamstrings (mean difference 11.99 %; 95 % CI 4.47 %-19.51 %; p = 0.002; I2: 73 %). No significant difference was found in anterior tibial translation and quadriceps strength.
CONCLUSIONS: ACL-IB had a higher failure rate compared to ACL-R. However, ACL-IB showed better hamstring strength and KOOS symptom score. No significant differences were seen in other PROs, time to return to sports, or quadriceps strength.
METHODS: Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, a search to PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central for studies comparing ACL-IB to ACL-R was performed. The main endpoints were patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and failure rate. Muscle and joint function and surgery time were also assessed. Statistical analysis was performed by Review Manager 5.1.7.
RESULTS: Nine studies comprising 1049 patients were included; 381 (36.3 %) underwent ACL-IB. Hamstring autografts were used for ACL-R in 421 patients (63.0 %). Most studies (6 of 8) reported follow-up longer than two years. The failure rate was higher in the ACL-IB group (risk ratio 3.62; 95 % CI 1.16 to 11.33; p = 0.03; I2: 52 %). No significant difference was found between groups for PROs, except KOOS Symptoms, which was significantly improved with ACL-IB (mean difference 2.49; 95 % CI 0.05 to 4.92; p = 0.05; I2: 0 %). ACL-IB resulted in stronger hamstrings (mean difference 11.99 %; 95 % CI 4.47 %-19.51 %; p = 0.002; I2: 73 %). No significant difference was found in anterior tibial translation and quadriceps strength.
CONCLUSIONS: ACL-IB had a higher failure rate compared to ACL-R. However, ACL-IB showed better hamstring strength and KOOS symptom score. No significant differences were seen in other PROs, time to return to sports, or quadriceps strength.