Comparing knee stability, subjective function, and OA development between DB & SB ACL reconstruction .
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2022;10(10):43 J Knee Surg. 2017 Nov;30(9):898-90460 patients requiring anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction were randomized to either double-bundle reconstruction or single-bundle reconstruction. Patients were assessed for instrumented anteroposterior knee laxity (KT-2000), subjective function, objective functional performance on hop tests, and osteoarthritis development over 6-year follow-up. Results demonstrated no significant differences in any outcome measure between the two groups. One case of rerupture was recorded, occurring in the DB reconstruction group.
Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?
Was allocation adequately concealed?
Blinding Treatment Providers: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Outcome Assessors: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Patients: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Was loss to follow-up (missing outcome data) infrequent?
Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?
Were outcomes objective, patient-important and assessed in a manner to limit bias (ie. duplicate assessors, Independent assessors)?
Was the sample size sufficiently large to assure a balance of prognosis and sufficiently large number of outcome events?
Was investigator expertise/experience with both treatment and control techniques likely the same (ie.were criteria for surgeon participation/expertise provided)?
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.
2/4
Randomization
4/4
Outcome Measurements
4/4
Inclusion / Exclusion
4/4
Therapy Description
4/5
Statistics
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 ?
A prevalent comparison in research on outcomes following anterior cruciate ligament is single-bundle versus double-bundle reconstruction. More recently, emphasis has been placed on whether specific technical factors may influence if differences are found between groups or not.
Quelle était la principale question de recherche ?
In anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, does double-bundle reconstruction, using an independent tunnel drilling technique, provide significantly greater anteroposterior knee stability compared to single-bundle reconstruction, using a transtibial technique, assessed over 6-year follow-up?
- At final follow-up, there was no significant difference in side-to-side difference KT-2000 results between the DB group (1.4+/-0.6mm) and the SB group (1.3+/-0.8mm) (p=0.74).
- At final follow-up, there was no significant difference in Lysholm score between the DB group (96.4+/-17.3) and the SB group (94.2+/-15.3) (p=0.36).
- At final follow-up, there was no significant difference in IKDC score between the DB group and the SB group (p=0.23).
- At final follow-up, there were no significant differences between the DB group and the SB group in single hop distance (p=0.1528), crossover top distance (p=0.14) and the timed hop test (p=0.16).
- There was one case of rerupture (DB group).
- Medial compartment OA development was observed in 3 patients of the DB group and 2 patients of the SB group.
De quoi dois-je me souvenir en priorité ?
In ACL reconstruction, there was no significant difference in 6-year AP stability, subjective functional outcome, or objective functional performance between cases completed using double-bundle, independent tunnel drilling reconstruction and cases completed using single-bundle, transtibial drilling reconstruction.
Comment cela affectera-t-il les soins prodigués à mes patients ?
Mid-term follow-up to 6-year data appears to suggest that outcomes may be similar for double-bundle ACL reconstruction and single-bundle ACL reconstruction. There does not appear to be significant differences in subjective or objective function, AP stability, or OA development between the two techniques. Nonetheless, this study is one of only a few randomized trials to extend follow-up beyond 5 years in a comparison between double- and single-bundle reconstruction. Accordingly, additional data is needed to verify if there are indeed any differences in outcome between the two techniques.
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
