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
Idioma
Download Download Download
Descarregar
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Citar
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Favoritos
Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report Translate this  ACE Report
Idioma
Download Download Download
Descarregar
Cite this Report Cite this Report Cite this Report
Citar
Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Add to Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites Remove from Favorites
+ Favoritos
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

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.


Detalhes do financiamento da publicação +
Financiamento:
Not Reported
Conflitos:
None disclosed

Risco de viés

6/10

Critérios de notificação

18/21

Índice de Fragilidade

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)?

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.

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

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?

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 a principal questão de investigação?

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?

Caraterísticas do estudo +
População:
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.
Intervenção:
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)
Comparação:
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)
Resultados:
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.
Métodos:
RCT; Single-surgeon, Single-center
Tempo:
Follow-up was scheduled for 6, 12, 36, and 72 months.
Quais foram os resultados importantes?
  • 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 que é que me devo lembrar mais?

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.

Como é que isto afectará o tratamento dos meus doentes?

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.

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
Atingiu o seu limite de 4 visualizações de artigos gratuitos este mês

Aceda à OrthoEvidence por apenas $1,99 por semana.

Mantenha-se ligado às últimas evidências. Cancele a qualquer altura.
  • Avaliações críticas dos mais recentes ensaios clínicos aleatórios de alto impacto e revisões sistemáticas em ortopedia
  • Acesso ao conteúdo do podcast OrthoEvidence, incluindo colaborações com o Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, entrevistas com cirurgiões reconhecidos internacionalmente e discussões em mesa redonda sobre notícias e tópicos ortopédicos
  • Subscrição do The Pulse, um boletim informativo duas vezes por semana baseado em evidências, concebido para o ajudar a tomar melhores decisões clínicas
Upgrade
Close Dialog
Bem-vindo de volta!
Esqueceu-se da palavra-passe?
Comece hoje o seu teste GRATUITO!

A sua conta será afiliada a
e inclui acesso gratuito ao OrthoEvidence


OU
Esqueceu-se da palavra-passe?

OU
Verifique o seu e-mail

Se existir uma conta com o endereço de e-mail fornecido, ser-lhe-á enviado um e-mail de reposição da palavra-passe. Se não vir uma mensagem de correio eletrónico, verifique a sua pasta de spam ou de lixo eletrónico.

Para obter mais assistência, contacte a nossa equipa de apoio.

Inicie sessão para ativar esta funcionalidade

Para aceder a esta funcionalidade, tem de iniciar sessão numa conta OrthoEvidence ativa. Inicie a sessão ou crie uma conta de avaliação GRATUITA.

Traduzir o Relatório ACE

A OrthoEvidence utiliza um serviço de tradução de terceiros para tornar o conteúdo acessível em vários idiomas. Tenha em atenção que, embora sejam feitos todos os esforços para garantir a exatidão, as traduções podem nem sempre ser perfeitas.

Como citar isto 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

Copie a citação
Inicie sessão para ativar esta funcionalidade

Para aceder a esta funcionalidade, tem de iniciar sessão numa conta OrthoEvidence ativa. Inicie a sessão ou crie uma conta de avaliação GRATUITA.

Funcionalidade de Membro Premium

Para aceder a esta funcionalidade, tem de ter sessão iniciada numa conta Premium da OrthoEvidence.

Partilhe isto ACE Report