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.
この研究はハイインパクトの可能性があります。
OEのAI駆動型ハイインパクト指標は、論文が掲載されたジャーナルと論文自体の科学的内容の両方からのシグナルを統合することで、論文が持つ可能性の高い影響力を推定します。
最先端の自然言語処理を用いて開発されたOEハイインパクトモデルは、ジャーナルのインパクトファクターのみよりも、研究の将来の引用実績をより正確に予測します。
これにより、臨床的に意義のある研究をより早く認識することが可能になり、読者は将来の診療を形成する可能性が最も高い論文に集中することができます。
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?
はい = 1
不確実＝0.5
無関係 = 0
いいえ = 0
報告基準評価では、著者が出版物内で試験の方法論的特徴や試験特性を報告する際の透明性を評価します。評価は以下の5つのカテゴリーに分類されます。
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
Fragility Indexは、重要な所見の解釈を助けるツールで、結果の強さの尺度を提供します。Fragility Indexは、その所見が有意でなくなるために、二項対立の結果に追加する必要がある連続した事象の数を表します。数値が小さいほど弱い所見を表し、数値が大きいほど強い所見を表します。
なぜ今この研究が必要なのですか？
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.
主な研究課題は何ですか？
Does DB ACL reconstruction better restore normal knee kinematics and provide better clinical outcomes than SB ALC reconstruction?
重要な知見は？
- 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).
最も覚えておくべきことは？
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.
それが私の患者ケアにどのように影響するか？
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.
免責事項
このページに記載されている内容は、情報提供のみを目的としたものであり、専門的な医療アドバイス、診断、治療の代わりとなるものではありません。治療が必要な場合は、必ず医師の診断を仰ぐか、最寄りの救急外来を受診してください。このページに記載されている内容に関して個人が表明した意見、信念、見解は、OrthoEvidenceの意見、信念、見解を反映するものではありません。
0の4 月間無料記事のロック解除
