Cargando…

Long term results after double and single bundle ACL reconstruction: Is there any difference? A meta - analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE: The double-bundle (DB) techniques are considered to yield better stability of the knee compared with single-bundle (SB) for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, most studies followed up patients in short to middle-term within 5 years, and the longer-term efficacy of S...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dong, Zhenyue, Niu, Yingzhen, Qi, Jianchao, Song, Yifan, Wang, Fei
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Turkish Association of Orthopaedics and Traumatology 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6506993/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30686570
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aott.2018.12.004
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: The double-bundle (DB) techniques are considered to yield better stability of the knee compared with single-bundle (SB) for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, most studies followed up patients in short to middle-term within 5 years, and the longer-term efficacy of SB and DB ACL reconstruction is still beyond consensus. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the longer-term efficacy between double-bundle (DB) and single-bundle (SB) techniques. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant articles published up to November, 2017 with an English language restriction. The searches were limited to human subjects and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In addition, the reference lists of identified articles were checked manually to avoid missing other potentially eligible studies. This process was performed iteratively until no additional articles could be included. The quality of the included studies was assessed using The Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. All statistical analyses were performed with Review Manager soft-ware. RESULTS: A total of five RCTs involving 294 patients were included finally. No studies were excluded due to insufficient data or low quality. The pooled results showed no statistically significant difference between SB and double bundle DB reconstructions for Lysholm, IKDC, pivot shift, KT scores, and the development of osteoarthritis at a minimum of 5 years. No significant heterogeneity was found across all outcomes. CONCLUSION: The best available evidence demonstrated that SB and DB techniques could yield similar efficacy for ACL reconstruction. And no superiority was founded in DB ACL reconstruction with a minimal 5-year follow-up. Given that, the relatively simple and proven techniques of SB ACL reconstruction may be preferable for orthopedic surgeons. Level of evidence: Level I, Therapeutic Study.