Cargando…

ACL Reconstruction in Skeletally Immature Patients: Does Graft Retear and Complication Rates Differ Based on Surgical Technique? A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: Despite exponential increases in studies regarding ACL reconstruction (ACLR) in pediatric patients in the last two decades, there remains a dearth of comparative studies designed to elucidate the optimal technique(s) for this active, high-risk sub-population. HYPOTHESIS/PURPOSE: The purp...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Coene, Ryan P., Pang, Joshua H., Fabricant, Peter D., Nepple, Jeffrey J., Matava, Matthew J., Heyworth, Benton E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9118441/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967121S00464
_version_ 1784710496278020096
author Coene, Ryan P.
Pang, Joshua H.
Fabricant, Peter D.
Nepple, Jeffrey J.
Matava, Matthew J.
Heyworth, Benton E.
author_facet Coene, Ryan P.
Pang, Joshua H.
Fabricant, Peter D.
Nepple, Jeffrey J.
Matava, Matthew J.
Heyworth, Benton E.
author_sort Coene, Ryan P.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Despite exponential increases in studies regarding ACL reconstruction (ACLR) in pediatric patients in the last two decades, there remains a dearth of comparative studies designed to elucidate the optimal technique(s) for this active, high-risk sub-population. HYPOTHESIS/PURPOSE: The purpose was to compare the rates of ACL re-tear, contralateral ACL tear, complications, and return-to-sport (RTS) between categories of ACLR techniques in skeletally immature patients. The hypothesis was that complication rates would be similar between techniques, while ACL re-tear rates would be higher in transphyseal (adolescent) ACLR than physeal-sparing (pediatric) ACLR. METHODS: A literature search indexed from the earliest available date to January 5, 2021 was performed using the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases for relevant journal articles with standard inclusion/exclusion criteria utilized for systematic reviews. Further exclusions were investigations of ACL repair, revision ACLR, and ACLR with allograft or BTB autograft. Cohorts of adolescent patients undergoing transphyseal ACLR were distinguished from those of pediatric patients undergoing physeal-sparing techniques, which were further sub-classified as all-epiphyseal (AE), iliotibial band (ITB)/modified Macintosh, and partial transphyseal (PTP). Transphyseal ACLR was further classified based on graft type (hamstring vs. quadriceps autograft). Meta-analysis for each outcome incidence rate was conducted within each subgroup and overall using a random-effects generalized linear mixed model with logit link. RESULTS: 44 studies published between 2001 and 2021 from 15 different peer-reviewed journals were included. The mean age of the adolescent/transphyseal group was 13.4 years (range, 11.0-14.8), compared to 12.3 years (range, 11.0-14.8) in the pediatric/physeal-sparing group (All-Epiphyseal, 12.6 years; ITB, 11.5 years; PTP, 12.6 years). Mean duration of follow-up was reported in 93.2% of the studies and was 4.0 years (range, 1.6-10.6 years). ACL re-tear, contralateral ACL tear, complications, and RTS were not significantly different between transphyseal and physeal-sparing techniques (all p>0.05) (Table 1). ITB demonstrated significantly lower complications (2.9%) than other physeal-sparing techniques (AE, 10.8%; PTP, 15.3%, p=0.005) and the lowest ACL re-tear rate (AE, 10.1%; ITB, 6.9%; PTP, 7.5%, p=0.20), though this difference was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike the findings of some single-center analyses, when the breadth of pediatric ACLR literature was analyzed in pooled fashion, no differences were seen between the clinical results of younger pediatric patients undergoing physeal-sparing ACLR and relatively older skeletally immature adolescents undergoing transphyseal ACLR. Amongst physeal-sparing techniques, the ITB/modified-Macintosh ACLR appears to have the lowest retear rate and a significantly lower complication rate than all-epiphyseal and partial-transphyseal ACLR.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9118441
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91184412022-05-20 ACL Reconstruction in Skeletally Immature Patients: Does Graft Retear and Complication Rates Differ Based on Surgical Technique? A Systematic Review Coene, Ryan P. Pang, Joshua H. Fabricant, Peter D. Nepple, Jeffrey J. Matava, Matthew J. Heyworth, Benton E. Orthop J Sports Med Article BACKGROUND: Despite exponential increases in studies regarding ACL reconstruction (ACLR) in pediatric patients in the last two decades, there remains a dearth of comparative studies designed to elucidate the optimal technique(s) for this active, high-risk sub-population. HYPOTHESIS/PURPOSE: The purpose was to compare the rates of ACL re-tear, contralateral ACL tear, complications, and return-to-sport (RTS) between categories of ACLR techniques in skeletally immature patients. The hypothesis was that complication rates would be similar between techniques, while ACL re-tear rates would be higher in transphyseal (adolescent) ACLR than physeal-sparing (pediatric) ACLR. METHODS: A literature search indexed from the earliest available date to January 5, 2021 was performed using the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases for relevant journal articles with standard inclusion/exclusion criteria utilized for systematic reviews. Further exclusions were investigations of ACL repair, revision ACLR, and ACLR with allograft or BTB autograft. Cohorts of adolescent patients undergoing transphyseal ACLR were distinguished from those of pediatric patients undergoing physeal-sparing techniques, which were further sub-classified as all-epiphyseal (AE), iliotibial band (ITB)/modified Macintosh, and partial transphyseal (PTP). Transphyseal ACLR was further classified based on graft type (hamstring vs. quadriceps autograft). Meta-analysis for each outcome incidence rate was conducted within each subgroup and overall using a random-effects generalized linear mixed model with logit link. RESULTS: 44 studies published between 2001 and 2021 from 15 different peer-reviewed journals were included. The mean age of the adolescent/transphyseal group was 13.4 years (range, 11.0-14.8), compared to 12.3 years (range, 11.0-14.8) in the pediatric/physeal-sparing group (All-Epiphyseal, 12.6 years; ITB, 11.5 years; PTP, 12.6 years). Mean duration of follow-up was reported in 93.2% of the studies and was 4.0 years (range, 1.6-10.6 years). ACL re-tear, contralateral ACL tear, complications, and RTS were not significantly different between transphyseal and physeal-sparing techniques (all p>0.05) (Table 1). ITB demonstrated significantly lower complications (2.9%) than other physeal-sparing techniques (AE, 10.8%; PTP, 15.3%, p=0.005) and the lowest ACL re-tear rate (AE, 10.1%; ITB, 6.9%; PTP, 7.5%, p=0.20), though this difference was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike the findings of some single-center analyses, when the breadth of pediatric ACLR literature was analyzed in pooled fashion, no differences were seen between the clinical results of younger pediatric patients undergoing physeal-sparing ACLR and relatively older skeletally immature adolescents undergoing transphyseal ACLR. Amongst physeal-sparing techniques, the ITB/modified-Macintosh ACLR appears to have the lowest retear rate and a significantly lower complication rate than all-epiphyseal and partial-transphyseal ACLR. SAGE Publications 2022-05-13 /pmc/articles/PMC9118441/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967121S00464 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This open-access article is published and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - No Derivatives License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits the noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction of the article in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this article without the permission of the Author(s). For article reuse guidelines, please visit SAGE’s website at http://www.sagepub.com/journals-permissions.
spellingShingle Article
Coene, Ryan P.
Pang, Joshua H.
Fabricant, Peter D.
Nepple, Jeffrey J.
Matava, Matthew J.
Heyworth, Benton E.
ACL Reconstruction in Skeletally Immature Patients: Does Graft Retear and Complication Rates Differ Based on Surgical Technique? A Systematic Review
title ACL Reconstruction in Skeletally Immature Patients: Does Graft Retear and Complication Rates Differ Based on Surgical Technique? A Systematic Review
title_full ACL Reconstruction in Skeletally Immature Patients: Does Graft Retear and Complication Rates Differ Based on Surgical Technique? A Systematic Review
title_fullStr ACL Reconstruction in Skeletally Immature Patients: Does Graft Retear and Complication Rates Differ Based on Surgical Technique? A Systematic Review
title_full_unstemmed ACL Reconstruction in Skeletally Immature Patients: Does Graft Retear and Complication Rates Differ Based on Surgical Technique? A Systematic Review
title_short ACL Reconstruction in Skeletally Immature Patients: Does Graft Retear and Complication Rates Differ Based on Surgical Technique? A Systematic Review
title_sort acl reconstruction in skeletally immature patients: does graft retear and complication rates differ based on surgical technique? a systematic review
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9118441/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967121S00464
work_keys_str_mv AT coeneryanp aclreconstructioninskeletallyimmaturepatientsdoesgraftretearandcomplicationratesdifferbasedonsurgicaltechniqueasystematicreview
AT pangjoshuah aclreconstructioninskeletallyimmaturepatientsdoesgraftretearandcomplicationratesdifferbasedonsurgicaltechniqueasystematicreview
AT aclreconstructioninskeletallyimmaturepatientsdoesgraftretearandcomplicationratesdifferbasedonsurgicaltechniqueasystematicreview
AT fabricantpeterd aclreconstructioninskeletallyimmaturepatientsdoesgraftretearandcomplicationratesdifferbasedonsurgicaltechniqueasystematicreview
AT nepplejeffreyj aclreconstructioninskeletallyimmaturepatientsdoesgraftretearandcomplicationratesdifferbasedonsurgicaltechniqueasystematicreview
AT matavamatthewj aclreconstructioninskeletallyimmaturepatientsdoesgraftretearandcomplicationratesdifferbasedonsurgicaltechniqueasystematicreview
AT heyworthbentone aclreconstructioninskeletallyimmaturepatientsdoesgraftretearandcomplicationratesdifferbasedonsurgicaltechniqueasystematicreview