Surgical repair of grade 3 lateral ligament ankle ruptures reduces re-injury .
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(2):77 J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010 Oct 20;92(14):2367-74. Epub 2010 Sep 10.51 physically active Finnish men with the acute rupture of the lateral ligament of the ankle were randomized to be treated with either the surgical repair and accelerated functional treatment or with traditional functional treatment using Aircast ankle brace. The long-term results of surgical treatment of acute lateral ligament rupture of the ankle corresponded well with functional treatment modalities alone; however, the surgical treatment had a lower re-rupture incidence, but was associated with higher rates of osteoarthritis of the ankle joint.
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)?
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.
3/4
Randomization
3/4
Outcome Measurements
4/4
Inclusion / Exclusion
4/4
Therapy Description
1/4
Statistics
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 ?
Lateral ligament ankle injuries are very common with over 300,000 cases reporting annually to emergency rooms in UK alone. The treatment of acute ruptures of the lateral ligaments is a controversial issue with insufficient evidence to compare surgical and non-surgical modalities. Previous studies have shown notable design flaws, such as short follow-ups, faulty randomizations, and heterogeneous study samples. This study evaluated the long term outcomes of the surgical vs non-surgical approaches.
Quelle était la principale question de recherche ?
Does the surgery provide better long-term outcomes than a purely functional rehabilitation for the grade 3 lateral ankle ruptures?
- The prevalence of reinjury was 1/15 in the surgical group and 7/18 in the functional treatment group (risk difference: 32%; 95% confidence interval: 6% to 58%).
- The mean ankle score on Performance Test Protocol and Scoring Scale for the Evaluation of Ankle Injuries was not significantly different between the groups (mean difference: 8.3 points; 95% confidence interval:-0.03 to 16.6 points)
- Stress radiographs showed no differences between groups, with regard to the mean anterior drawer (1 mm in the surgical group and 0 mm in the functional group; mean difference: 0.7 mm; 95% confidence interval:1.4 to 2.7 mm) or mean tilt angle (0 degrees in both groups; mean difference: 0.1 degrees; 95% confidence interval: 3.2 degrees to 3.5 degrees)
- Grade-II osteoarthritis was observed on magnetic resonance images of 4/15 surgically treated patients and 0/18 for the functionally treated patients (risk difference: 27%; 95% confidence interval: 4% to 49%)
- 10/15 patients in the surgical group and 7/18 in functional group subjectively reported complete recovery (risk difference: 28%; 95% confidence interval: -5% to 61%). All patients in both groups recovered to preinjury activity level (walk and run normally)
- The level of physical activity, range of motion compared to contralateral ankle, and number of patients visiting a physician at the time of follow-up did not differ between the two groups.
- 3/15 surgical patients had loss of sensation in the lateral aspect of ankle and foot. No re-operations due to ankle instability, infections, or incidences of venous thrombosis were seen in either group.
De quoi dois-je me souvenir en priorité ?
The recovery to preinjury levels of acute lateral grade III ligament rupture of the ankle was equivalent when using either surgical or nonoperative methods. Re-injury was significantly less in surgical group; however, there was significantly more OA present.
Comment cela affectera-t-il les soins prodigués à mes patients ?
This study questions whether to subject patients to surgical risks given the evidence of equal pre-injury recovery, and suggests that non-surgical treatments can be equally beneficial. However, larger sample sizes are needed to confirm these findings.
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
