ACE Report Cover
Comparing knee stability, subjective function, and OA development between DB & SB ACL reconstruction
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Lingua
Download Download Download
Scaricare
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Citare
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Preferiti
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Lingua
Download Download Download
Scaricare
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Citare
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Preferiti
SPORTS MEDICINE
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):898-904
Autori che hanno contribuito

L de Girolamo P Adravanti MA Rosa F Dini M Cattani

60 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.


Dettagli sul finanziamento della pubblicazione +
Finanziamento:
Not Reported
Conflitti:
None disclosed

Rischio di pregiudizio

6/10

Criteri di segnalazione

18/21

Indice di fragilità

N/A

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)?

Sì = 1

Incerto = 0,5

Non rilevante = 0

No = 0

La valutazione dei criteri di segnalazione valuta la trasparenza con cui gli autori riportano le caratteristiche metodologiche e sperimentali dello studio all'interno della pubblicazione. La valutazione è suddivisa in cinque categorie che vengono presentate di seguito.

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 di Fragilità è uno strumento che aiuta l'interpretazione dei risultati significativi, fornendo una misura della forza di un risultato. L'Indice di Fragilità rappresenta il numero di eventi consecutivi che devono essere aggiunti a un risultato dicotomico per rendere il risultato non più significativo. Un numero piccolo rappresenta un risultato più debole, mentre un numero grande rappresenta un risultato più forte.

Perché questo studio era necessario ora?

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.

Qual era la domanda di ricerca principale?

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?

Caratteristiche dello studio +
Population:
60 patients, 16-45 years of age, with a complete rupture of the ACL and scheduled for arthroscopic reconstruction. Cases of significant knee deformity, or requiring concomitant meniscal repair or mensicectomy were excluded. All surgeries were completed using semitendinosus and gracilis autografts.
Intervention:
DB group: Double-bundle reconstruction was performed. The anteromedial and posterolateral tibial tunnels were drilled using a standard tibial guide. The posterolateral femoral tunnel was drilled using an outside-in technique with a femoral guide, and the anteromedial femoral tunnel was drilled using a transtibial method through the posterolateral tibial tunnel. Femoral fixation was achieved using an interference screw for the posterolateral bundle, and an EndoButton for the anteromedial bundle. Tibial fixation was achieved using staples and interference screws. (n=30; 27 analyzed) (Mean age: 26.4+/-8.5)
Comparison:
SB group: Single-bundle reconstruction was performed using a transtibial drilling technique. Femoral fixation was achieved using an EndoButton, and tibial fixation was achieved using an interference screw. (n=30; 26 analyzed) (Mean age: 28.3+/-6.2)
Outcomes:
Anteroposterior knee stability was assessed using a KT-2000 arthrometer, and reported as side-to-difference. Subjective function was assessed using the Lysholm score and the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC). Functional performance was assessed using the single-leg hop, the crossover triple hop, and timed hop tests. Development of osteoarthritis (OA) was examined using radiographs, and classified using the Kellgren-Lawrence grade.
Methods:
RCT; Single-surgeon, Single-center
Time:
Follow-up was scheduled for 6, 12, 36, and 72 months.
Quali erano i risultati importanti?
  • 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.
Che cosa devo ricordare di più?

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.

Come influenzerà l'assistenza ai miei pazienti?

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.

DISCLAIMER

Il contenuto di questa pagina è solo a scopo informativo e non intende sostituire la consulenza, la diagnosi o il trattamento medico professionale. Se ha bisogno di cure mediche, si rivolga sempre al suo medico o al pronto soccorso più vicino. Le opinioni, le convinzioni e i punti di vista espressi dalle persone sui contenuti presenti in questa pagina non riflettono le opinioni, le convinzioni e i punti di vista di OrthoEvidence.

0 di 4 articoli mensili GRATUITI sbloccati
Ha raggiunto il suo limite di 4 visualizzazioni di articoli gratuiti questo mese

Accesso a OrthoEvidence a soli 1,99 dollari a settimana.

Rimanga in contatto con le ultime prove. Può disdire in qualsiasi momento.
  • Valutazioni critiche dei più recenti studi randomizzati controllati ad alto impatto e delle revisioni sistematiche in ortopedia.
  • Accesso ai contenuti del podcast OrthoEvidence, tra cui collaborazioni con il Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, interviste con chirurghi di fama internazionale e tavole rotonde su notizie e argomenti ortopedici.
  • Abbonamento a The Pulse, una newsletter bisettimanale basata sulle evidenze scientifiche, progettata per aiutarla a prendere decisioni cliniche migliori.
Upgrade
Close Dialog
Bentornato!
Ha dimenticato la password?
Inizi la sua prova gratuita oggi stesso!

Il suo account sarà affiliato a
e includerà l'accesso gratuito a OrthoEvidence


O
Ha dimenticato la password?

O
Controlli la sua e-mail

Se esiste un account con l'indirizzo e-mail fornito, le verrà inviata un'e-mail di reimpostazione della password. Se non vede l'e-mail, controlli la cartella spam o posta indesiderata.

Per ulteriore assistenza, contatti il nostro team di supporto.

Effettui il login per abilitare questa funzione

Per accedere a questa funzione, deve essere collegato ad un account OrthoEvidence attivo. Effettui il login o crei un account di prova GRATUITO.

Tradurre il Rapporto ACE

OrthoEvidence utilizza un servizio di traduzione di terze parti per rendere i contenuti accessibili in più lingue. Si prega di notare che, sebbene venga fatto ogni sforzo per garantire l'accuratezza, le traduzioni potrebbero non essere sempre perfette.

Come citare questo documento ACE Report

OrthoEvidence. Comparing knee stability, subjective function, and OA development between DB & SB ACL reconstruction. OE Journal. 2022;10(10):43. Available from: https://myorthoevidence.com/AceReport/Show/comparing-knee-stability-subjective-function-and-oa-development-between-db-sb-acl-reconstruction

Copiare la citazione
Effettui il login per abilitare questa funzione

Per accedere a questa funzione, deve essere collegato ad un account OrthoEvidence attivo. Effettui il login o crei un account di prova GRATUITO.

Funzionalità per i membri Premium

Per accedere a questa funzione, deve essere collegato ad un account OrthoEvidence Premium.

Condividi questo articolo ACE Report