No clinical change for PCL sacrifice vs retention in TKA .
This report has been verified
by one or more authors of the
original publication.
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2015;3(12):13 Acta Orthop. 2015 Apr;86(2):195-201.Posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) retention or sacrifice was compared in 20 studies. A total of 2347 knees from 1877 patients were considered. Statistically significant differences in postoperative flexion and KSS scores were observed in favor of sacrifice, however these differences did not reach clinical significance. Due to the lack of patient-important differences between these treatments neither can be recommended over the other.
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?
نعم = 1
غير مؤكد = 0.5
غير ذي صلة = 0
لا = 0
يقيّم تقييم معايير الإبلاغ الشفافية التي يبلغ بها المؤلفون عن الخصائص المنهجية والتجريبية للتجربة في المنشور. ينقسم التقييم إلى خمس فئات معروضة أدناه.
4/4
Introduction
3/4
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
مؤشر الهشاشة هو أداة تساعد في تفسير النتائج المهمة، وتوفر مقياسًا لقوة النتيجة. ويمثل مؤشر الهشاشة عدد الأحداث المتتالية التي يجب إضافتها إلى نتيجة ثنائية التفرع لجعل النتيجة غير مهمة. يمثل الرقم الصغير نتيجة أضعف ويمثل الرقم الكبير نتيجة أقوى.
لماذا كانت هناك حاجة لهذه الدراسة الآن؟
Retention of the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) is a point of disagreement in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The PCL has been found to provide normal proprioception and kinesthesia, as well as natural knee function. However, if the PCL is not balanced appropriately, many complications can arise. A previous meta-analysis was unable to determine if PCL retention or sacrifice provides better clinical outcomes. Since the publication of this meta-analysis a number of new trials have been completed. This meta-analysis will provide an update of previous work, giving an up to date view on the topic.
ما هو سؤال البحث الرئيسي؟
Are there differences in functional, clinical, and radiological outcomes at a minimum of one year follow-up when comparing PCL-retaining and PCL-sacrificing total knee arthroplasty?
- 5 studies had low risk of bias, 5 studies had high risk of bias, and 10 studies had an unclear risk of bias
- There was a mean difference in postoperative flexion angle of 2.11 degrees (12 studies: [95% CI 0.23, 3.98]; p=0.03; I^2=29%)
- Knee Society functional score had a statistically significant increase of 2.36 points when PCL was sacrificed (9 studies: [95% CI 0.41, 4.3]; p=0.02; I^2=0.0%)
- WOMAC score had a non-significant difference between PCL sacrifice and retention (5 studies: [95% CI -0.35, 1.79]; p=0.19)
- No significant differences were found in the KSS pain, clinical or overall score, HSS score, SF-12, and radiolucent lines (p>0.05)
ما الذي يجب أن أتذكره أكثر؟
There were no clinically relevant differences in clinical and functional outcomes between posterior cruciate ligament sacrifice and retention in TKA.
كيف سيؤثر ذلك على رعاية مرضاي؟
No clinical difference was found between PCL sacrifice and retention in terms of functional and clinical scores. Results should be interpreted with caution, as many reports had either high risk of bias or an unclear risk of bias. Future studies should focus on additional outcomes, more preoperative information, cost effectiveness, and larger populations.
تنويه
هذا المحتوى الموجود في هذه الصفحة هو لأغراض إعلامية فقط وليس الغرض منه أن يكون بديلاً عن المشورة الطبية المتخصصة أو التشخيص أو العلاج. إذا كنت بحاجة إلى علاج طبي، اطلب دائمًا مشورة طبيبك أو اذهب إلى أقرب قسم طوارئ إليك. الآراء والمعتقدات ووجهات النظر التي يعبر عنها الأفراد في المحتوى الموجود في هذه الصفحة لا تعكس آراء ومعتقدات ووجهات نظر أورثوإيفيدنس.
0 من 4 مقالات مجانية شهرية غير مقفلة
