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.
Cette étude a été identifiée comme étant potentiellement à fort impact.
L'indicateur High Impact de l'ENP, basé sur l'IA, estime l'influence qu'un article est susceptible d'avoir en intégrant des signaux provenant à la fois de la revue dans laquelle il est publié et du contenu scientifique de l'article lui-même.
Développé à l'aide d'un traitement du langage naturel de pointe, le modèle High Impact de l'ENP prédit avec plus de précision les futures citations d'une étude que le seul facteur d'impact de la revue.
Cela permet d'identifier plus tôt les recherches cliniquement significatives et aide les lecteurs à se concentrer sur les articles les plus susceptibles d'influencer les pratiques futures.
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?
Oui = 1
Incertain = 0,5
Non pertinent = 0
Non = 0
L'évaluation des critères de rapport permet d'évaluer la transparence avec laquelle les auteurs rapportent les caractéristiques méthodologiques et les caractéristiques de l'essai dans la publication. L'évaluation est divisée en cinq catégories qui sont présentées ci-dessous.
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
L'indice de fragilité est un outil qui aide à l'interprétation des résultats significatifs, en fournissant une mesure de la force d'un résultat. L'indice de fragilité représente le nombre d'événements consécutifs qui doivent être ajoutés à un résultat dichotomique pour que le résultat ne soit plus significatif. Un petit nombre représente un résultat plus faible et un grand nombre un résultat plus fort.
Pourquoi cette étude était-elle nécessaire maintenant ?
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.
Quelle était la principale question de recherche ?
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).
De quoi dois-je me souvenir en priorité ?
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.
Comment cela affectera-t-il les soins prodigués à mes patients ?
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.
AVIS DE NON-RESPONSABILITÉ
Le contenu de cette page est fourni à titre d'information uniquement et n'est pas destiné à remplacer un avis médical, un diagnostic ou un traitement professionnel. Si vous avez besoin d'un traitement médical, demandez toujours l'avis de votre médecin ou rendez-vous au service des urgences le plus proche. Les opinions, croyances et points de vue exprimés par les individus sur le contenu de cette page ne reflètent pas les opinions, croyances et points de vue d'OrthoEvidence.
0 de 4 articles mensuels GRATUITS débloqués
