Allograft and autograft for ACL reconstruction lead to similar clinical outcomes .
This report has been verified
by one or more authors of the
original publication.
Este estudio ha sido identificado como potencialmente de alto impacto.
La métrica de alto impacto de OE, impulsada por la IA, estima la influencia que probablemente tendrá un artículo integrando señales tanto de la revista en la que se publica como del contenido científico del propio artículo.
Desarrollado mediante el procesamiento del lenguaje natural más avanzado, el modelo de Alto Impacto de OE predice con mayor precisión el futuro rendimiento de las citas de un estudio que el factor de impacto de la revista por sí solo.
Esto permite reconocer antes las investigaciones clínicamente significativas y ayuda a los lectores a centrarse en los artículos con más probabilidades de configurar la práctica futura.
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2013;1(4):52 Int Orthop. 2013 Feb;37(2):311-20. doi: 10.1007/s00264-012-1720-5. Epub 2012 Dec 4Nine studies (818 patients) were identified to compare the clinical outcomes of allograft versus autograft for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. No significant differences in clinical outcomes were identified between the two treatments to determine which was more optimal for ACL reconstruction. However, subgroup analysis revealed that reconstruction with bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autograft may allow patients to return to higher levels of activity when compared to BPTB allograft.
Were the search methods used to find evidence (original research) on the primary question or questions stated?
Was the search for evidence reasonably comprehensive?
Were the criteria used for deciding which studies to include in the overview reported?
Was the bias in the selection of studies avoided?
Were the criteria used for assessing the validity of the included studies reported?
Was the validity of all of the studies referred to in the text assessed with use of appropriate criteria (either in selecting the studies for inclusion or in analyzing the studies that were cited)?
Were the methods used to combine the findings of the relevant studies (to reach a conclusion) reported?
Were the findings of the relevant studies combined appropriately relative to the primary question that the overview addresses?
Were the conclusions made by the author or authors supported by the data and or analysis reported in the overview?
How would you rate the scientific quality of this evidence?
Sí = 1
Incierto = 0,5
No relevante = 0
No = 0
La evaluación de los criterios de información evalúa la transparencia con la que los autores informan de las características metodológicas y del ensayo dentro de la publicación. La evaluación se divide en cinco categorías que se presentan a continuación.
4/4
Introduction
4/4
Accessing Data
4/4
Analysing Data
3/4
Results
3/4
Discussion
Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65
El Índice de Fragilidad es una herramienta que ayuda en la interpretación de hallazgos significativos, proporcionando una medida de fuerza para un resultado. El Índice de Fragilidad representa el número de eventos consecutivos que es necesario añadir a un resultado dicotómico para que el hallazgo deje de ser significativo. Un número pequeño representa un hallazgo más débil y un número grande un hallazgo más fuerte.
¿Por qué se necesitaba ahora este estudio?
ACL reconstruction is the primary treatment option for ACL ruptures to prevent knee instability. However, it is still uncertain whether allografts provide similar results as autografts for ACL reconstruction. The majority of the past systematic reviews reporting these treatments have been based on low-quality studies. With the publication of new randomized trials since the latest systematic review, this meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of allografts versus autografts for ACL reconstruction.
¿Cuál era la pregunta principal de la investigación?
Which treatment - allografts or autografts - for ACL reconstruction led to better clinical outcomes?
- 9 studies (410 patients in the autograft and 408 patients in the allograft group) were included in this meta-analysis; 4 studies were randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and 5 were prospective cohort studies.
- Analysis from 6 studies revealed the risk ratio for KT-1000/2000 side-to-side difference >5 mm was 1.19 in favour of allograft (95% CI, 0.63 to 2.24); however, the results were not significant (P = 0.59).
- According to 6 studies, the risk ratio for abnormal Lachman test (grade >0) was 0.88 in favour of autograft (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.2); the results were not deemed significant (P = 0.41).
- 7 studies indicated that the risk ratio for abnormal Pivot Shift test (grade >0) was 0.97 in favour of autograft (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.46); however, the results were not significant (P = 0.88).
- In regards to objective IKDC scores, analysis from 7 studies revealed that the risk ratio for being considered abnormal or severely abnormal was 0.96 favouring autograft (95% CI, 0.6 to 1.54); the results were not statistically significant (P = 0.87).
- 3 studies revealed a mean difference of 0.3 on Lysholm scores in favour of autograft (95% CI, -1.97 to 2.57), where the results were not significant (P = 0.79); the same 3 studies indicated a mean difference of 0.25 on Tegner scores in favour of autograft (95% CI, -0.01 to 0.52), where the results were not significant (P = 0.06).
- The subgroup analysis of Tegner scores by only pooling 4 studies involving BPTB grafts estimated a mean difference of 0.5 in favour autograft (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.85; P = 0.005).
¿Qué es lo que más debo recordar?
This meta-analysis revealed that ACL reconstruction with allografts or autografts led to similar clinical outcomes. However, subgroup analysis indicated that reconstruction with BPTB autograft may allow patients to return to higher levels of activity in comparison with BPTB allograft.
¿Cómo afectará esto al cuidado de mis pacientes?
There was insufficient evidence to determine which graft technique was superior for ACL reconstruction. These results suggest equivocal clinical results for allograft and autograft overall, although bone patellar tendon bone autografts may be superior to allograft for return to high-level activity. Future research involving high-quality RCTs with specified age and activity are required to further evaluate the outcomes of these two treatments.
DESCARGO DE RESPONSABILIDAD
El contenido de esta página tiene únicamente fines informativos y no pretende sustituir el consejo, diagnóstico o tratamiento médico profesional. Si necesita tratamiento médico, busque siempre el consejo de su médico o acuda al servicio de urgencias más cercano. Las opiniones, creencias y puntos de vista expresados por las personas sobre el contenido que se encuentra en esta página no reflejan las opiniones, creencias y puntos de vista de OrthoEvidence.
0 de 4 artículos mensuales GRATIS desbloqueados
