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 estudo foi identificado como tendo um impacto potencialmente elevado.
A métrica de Alto Impacto da OE, baseada em IA, estima a influência que um artigo poderá ter, integrando sinais da revista em que foi publicado e do conteúdo científico do próprio artigo.
Desenvolvido com recurso ao mais avançado processamento de linguagem natural, o modelo High Impact da OE prevê com maior precisão o desempenho futuro de um estudo em termos de citações do que o fator de impacto da revista por si só.
Isto permite o reconhecimento precoce de investigação clinicamente significativa e ajuda os leitores a concentrarem-se nos artigos com maior probabilidade de moldar a prática 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?
Sim = 1
Incerto = 0,5
Não relevante = 0
Não = 0
A Avaliação dos Critérios de Relato avalia a transparência com que os autores relatam as caraterísticas metodológicas e do ensaio na publicação. A avaliação está dividida em cinco categorias que são apresentadas de seguida.
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
O Índice de Fragilidade é uma ferramenta que auxilia na interpretação de achados significativos, fornecendo uma medida de força para um resultado. O Índice de Fragilidade representa o número de eventos consecutivos que precisam de ser adicionados a um resultado dicotómico para que o resultado deixe de ser significativo. Um número pequeno representa um resultado mais fraco e um número grande representa um resultado mais forte.
Porque é que este estudo era necessário agora?
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.
Qual era a principal questão de investigação?
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 que é que me devo lembrar mais?
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.
Como é que isto afectará o tratamento dos meus doentes?
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.
AVISO LEGAL
O conteúdo desta página destina-se apenas a fins informativos e não pretende substituir o aconselhamento, diagnóstico ou tratamento médico profissional. Se necessitar de tratamento médico, procure sempre o conselho do seu médico ou dirija-se ao serviço de urgência mais próximo. As opiniões, crenças e pontos de vista expressos pelos indivíduos no conteúdo encontrado nesta página não reflectem as opiniões, crenças e pontos de vista da OrthoEvidence.
0 de 4 artigos mensais GRATUITOS desbloqueados
