Cargando…
Remnant preservation technique versus standard technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis was performed to compare the clinical outcomes of primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using the ACL remnant preservation technique versus the standard technique. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched through December 24, 20...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6134761/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30208920 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-0937-4 |
_version_ | 1783354723179429888 |
---|---|
author | Wang, Hong-De Wang, Fu-Shun Gao, Shi-Jun Zhang, Ying-Ze |
author_facet | Wang, Hong-De Wang, Fu-Shun Gao, Shi-Jun Zhang, Ying-Ze |
author_sort | Wang, Hong-De |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis was performed to compare the clinical outcomes of primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using the ACL remnant preservation technique versus the standard technique. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched through December 24, 2017, to identify randomized controlled studies that compared the use of the ACL remnant preservation technique versus the standard technique for primary ACL reconstruction. Statistical heterogeneity among the trials was evaluated with chi-square and I-square tests. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore sources of heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis was performed to identify potential differences according to type of ACL remnant tissue (remnant bundle or remnant fibers). RESULTS: Seven studies with a combined 412 patients (208 in the remnant preservation technique group and 204 in the standard technique group) were included in the meta-analysis. There was a significant difference between the groups in Lysholm score (mean difference (MD), 2.20; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.95–3.45; P = 0.0006) and side-to-side difference (MD, − 0.71; 95% CI, − 0.87 to − 0.55; P < 0.01). There was no significant difference between the groups in subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, complications, pivot shift test, Lachman test, or overall IKDC score. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that for primary ACL reconstruction with preservation of remnant fibers, the remnant preservation technique was superior to the standard technique based on Lysholm scores (P < 0.01) and side-to-side difference (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current literature, using the remnant preservation technique showed a better clinical outcome than using the standard technique for patients undergoing primary ACL reconstruction with respect to Lysholm score and side-to-side difference. However, it remains unclear that there is a definite advantage to use the remnant preservation technique compared with the standard technique. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13018-018-0937-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6134761 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-61347612018-09-15 Remnant preservation technique versus standard technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials Wang, Hong-De Wang, Fu-Shun Gao, Shi-Jun Zhang, Ying-Ze J Orthop Surg Res Systematic Review BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis was performed to compare the clinical outcomes of primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using the ACL remnant preservation technique versus the standard technique. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched through December 24, 2017, to identify randomized controlled studies that compared the use of the ACL remnant preservation technique versus the standard technique for primary ACL reconstruction. Statistical heterogeneity among the trials was evaluated with chi-square and I-square tests. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore sources of heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis was performed to identify potential differences according to type of ACL remnant tissue (remnant bundle or remnant fibers). RESULTS: Seven studies with a combined 412 patients (208 in the remnant preservation technique group and 204 in the standard technique group) were included in the meta-analysis. There was a significant difference between the groups in Lysholm score (mean difference (MD), 2.20; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.95–3.45; P = 0.0006) and side-to-side difference (MD, − 0.71; 95% CI, − 0.87 to − 0.55; P < 0.01). There was no significant difference between the groups in subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, complications, pivot shift test, Lachman test, or overall IKDC score. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that for primary ACL reconstruction with preservation of remnant fibers, the remnant preservation technique was superior to the standard technique based on Lysholm scores (P < 0.01) and side-to-side difference (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the current literature, using the remnant preservation technique showed a better clinical outcome than using the standard technique for patients undergoing primary ACL reconstruction with respect to Lysholm score and side-to-side difference. However, it remains unclear that there is a definite advantage to use the remnant preservation technique compared with the standard technique. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13018-018-0937-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-09-12 /pmc/articles/PMC6134761/ /pubmed/30208920 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-0937-4 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 | Systematic Review Wang, Hong-De Wang, Fu-Shun Gao, Shi-Jun Zhang, Ying-Ze Remnant preservation technique versus standard technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials |
title | Remnant preservation technique versus standard technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials |
title_full | Remnant preservation technique versus standard technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials |
title_fullStr | Remnant preservation technique versus standard technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials |
title_full_unstemmed | Remnant preservation technique versus standard technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials |
title_short | Remnant preservation technique versus standard technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials |
title_sort | remnant preservation technique versus standard technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials |
topic | Systematic Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6134761/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30208920 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13018-018-0937-4 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wanghongde remnantpreservationtechniqueversusstandardtechniqueforanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT wangfushun remnantpreservationtechniqueversusstandardtechniqueforanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT gaoshijun remnantpreservationtechniqueversusstandardtechniqueforanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials AT zhangyingze remnantpreservationtechniqueversusstandardtechniqueforanteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials |