Cargando…

Single-bundle versus double-bundle autologous anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials at 5-year minimum follow-up

BACKGROUND: Both single-bundle (SB) and double-bundle (DB) techniques were widely used in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction recently. Nevertheless, up to now, no consensus has been reached on whether the DB technique was superior to the SB technique. Moreover, follow-up of the included...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chen, Haitao, Chen, Biao, Tie, Kai, Fu, Zhengdao, Chen, Liaobin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5845364/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29523208
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-0753-x
_version_ 1783305415530905600
author Chen, Haitao
Chen, Biao
Tie, Kai
Fu, Zhengdao
Chen, Liaobin
author_facet Chen, Haitao
Chen, Biao
Tie, Kai
Fu, Zhengdao
Chen, Liaobin
author_sort Chen, Haitao
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Both single-bundle (SB) and double-bundle (DB) techniques were widely used in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction recently. Nevertheless, up to now, no consensus has been reached on whether the DB technique was superior to the SB technique. Moreover, follow-up of the included studies in the published meta-analyses is mostly short term. Our study aims to compare the mid- to long-term outcome of SB and DB ACL reconstruction concerning knee stability, clinical function, graft failure rate, and osteoarthritis (OA) changes. METHODS: This study followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to October 2017. The study included only a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that compared SB and DB ACL reconstruction and that had a minimum of 5-year follow-up. The Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias for all included studies. Stata/SE 12.0 was used to perform a meta-analysis of the clinical outcome. RESULTS: Five RCTs were included, with a total of 294 patients: 150 patients and 144 patients in the DB group and the SB group, respectively. Assessing knee stability, there was no statistical difference in side-to-side difference and negative rate of the pivot-shift test. Considering functional outcome, no significant difference was found in proportion with International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) grade A, IKDC score, Lysholm scores, and Tegner scores. As for graft failure rate and OA changes, no significant difference was found between the DB group and the SB group. CONCLUSION: The DB technique was not superior to the SB technique in autologous ACL reconstruction regarding knee stability, clinical function, graft failure rate, and OA changes with a mid- to long-term follow-up.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5845364
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58453642018-03-19 Single-bundle versus double-bundle autologous anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials at 5-year minimum follow-up Chen, Haitao Chen, Biao Tie, Kai Fu, Zhengdao Chen, Liaobin J Orthop Surg Res Review BACKGROUND: Both single-bundle (SB) and double-bundle (DB) techniques were widely used in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction recently. Nevertheless, up to now, no consensus has been reached on whether the DB technique was superior to the SB technique. Moreover, follow-up of the included studies in the published meta-analyses is mostly short term. Our study aims to compare the mid- to long-term outcome of SB and DB ACL reconstruction concerning knee stability, clinical function, graft failure rate, and osteoarthritis (OA) changes. METHODS: This study followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to October 2017. The study included only a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that compared SB and DB ACL reconstruction and that had a minimum of 5-year follow-up. The Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias for all included studies. Stata/SE 12.0 was used to perform a meta-analysis of the clinical outcome. RESULTS: Five RCTs were included, with a total of 294 patients: 150 patients and 144 patients in the DB group and the SB group, respectively. Assessing knee stability, there was no statistical difference in side-to-side difference and negative rate of the pivot-shift test. Considering functional outcome, no significant difference was found in proportion with International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) grade A, IKDC score, Lysholm scores, and Tegner scores. As for graft failure rate and OA changes, no significant difference was found between the DB group and the SB group. CONCLUSION: The DB technique was not superior to the SB technique in autologous ACL reconstruction regarding knee stability, clinical function, graft failure rate, and OA changes with a mid- to long-term follow-up. BioMed Central 2018-03-10 /pmc/articles/PMC5845364/ /pubmed/29523208 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-0753-x Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Review
Chen, Haitao
Chen, Biao
Tie, Kai
Fu, Zhengdao
Chen, Liaobin
Single-bundle versus double-bundle autologous anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials at 5-year minimum follow-up
title Single-bundle versus double-bundle autologous anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials at 5-year minimum follow-up
title_full Single-bundle versus double-bundle autologous anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials at 5-year minimum follow-up
title_fullStr Single-bundle versus double-bundle autologous anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials at 5-year minimum follow-up
title_full_unstemmed Single-bundle versus double-bundle autologous anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials at 5-year minimum follow-up
title_short Single-bundle versus double-bundle autologous anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials at 5-year minimum follow-up
title_sort single-bundle versus double-bundle autologous anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials at 5-year minimum follow-up
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5845364/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29523208
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-0753-x
work_keys_str_mv AT chenhaitao singlebundleversusdoublebundleautologousanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsat5yearminimumfollowup
AT chenbiao singlebundleversusdoublebundleautologousanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsat5yearminimumfollowup
AT tiekai singlebundleversusdoublebundleautologousanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsat5yearminimumfollowup
AT fuzhengdao singlebundleversusdoublebundleautologousanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsat5yearminimumfollowup
AT chenliaobin singlebundleversusdoublebundleautologousanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsat5yearminimumfollowup