SPORTS MEDICINE
Outcomes of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Single-Bundle Versus Double-Bundle Technique: Meta-analysis of 19 Randomized Controlled Trials
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(3):101 Arthroscopy. 2013 Feb;29(2):357-65. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2012.08.02419 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (1676 patients) examining the effects of double-bundle (DB) and single-bundle (SB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions were evaluated to determine which of the two techniques provided better stability and functional outcomes. Following comparisons, results indicated that DB ACL reconstruction provided better anterior and rotational stability and higher IKDC score than SB ACL reconstruction.
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
4/4
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 ruptures are one of the most common injuries in those taking part in athletic activities. ACL reconstructions are typically performed using the SB approach, but recent studies have suggested that the DB method provides better clinical outcomes and a lower risk of developing osteoarthritis. However, there is not enough evidence to confirm this. Therefore, this meta-analysis aimed to determine whether DB ACL reconstruction resulted in better functional results than SB ACL reconstruction.
Quelle était la principale question de recherche ?
Does DB ACL reconstruction better restore normal knee kinematics and provide better clinical outcomes than SB ALC reconstruction?
Quels sont les résultats importants ?
- Heterogeneity across 14 studies with results for the pivot shift test (grades A, B, C, D) was high (I-squared: 83.8%). The RR for patient being graded A was 0.77 (95% CI: 0.67 to 0.89), this suggested that there were significantly more patients graded A in the DB group.
- For anterior stability, measured using the Lachman test, the RR was 0.84 (95% CI: 0.78 to 0.92), which suggested that more patients in the DB group were graded A. Heterogeneity was relatively small (I-squared: 38.8%).
- For anterior stability, measured using KT-2000 and KT-1000, the overall combined SMD values significantly preferred DB ACL reconstruction (SMD: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.46).
- The IKDC objective score (SMD: -0.08 (-0.43, 0.15)) for functional outcome displayed a significant difference between SB and DB groups, favouring DB reconstruction (RR: 0.80 (0.68, 0.93)).
- The correlation coefficient between the SMDs and RRs was calculated to be 0.034.
- Begg's test indicated that no publication bias existed in the pivot shift test (p=0.635).
De quoi dois-je me souvenir en priorité ?
The results from this meta-analysis indicated that better anterior and rotational stability and higher IKDC scores were obtained in those patients who underwent DB ACL reconstruction compared to SB ACL reconstruction. No significant differences were displayed between the two techniques for subjective outcomes.
Comment cela affectera-t-il les soins prodigués à mes patients ?
DB ACL reconstruction is better than SB ACL for re-establishing stability, however, there were no significant differences in subjective outcomes between these methods of reconstruction. For this reason it is still unclear which method of reconstruction should be recommended. Additional RCTs with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods should be conducted in order to provide more evidence for any future meta-analyses regarding this topic. Additional research also needs to be conducted to examine differences between anatomical reconstructions.
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
