...
首页> 外文期刊>The Knee >Is reconstruction the best management strategy for anterior cruciate ligament rupture? A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction versus non-operative treatment
【24h】

Is reconstruction the best management strategy for anterior cruciate ligament rupture? A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction versus non-operative treatment

机译:重建是前交叉韧带破裂的最佳治疗策略吗?对前交叉韧带重建与非手术治疗进行比较的系统评价和荟萃分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Aims: The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal clinical and cost-effective strategy for managing people following ACL rupture. Methods: A systematic review of the published (AMED, CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, psycINFO and the Cochrane Library) and unpublished literature (OpenGrey, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Current Controlled Trials and the UK National Research Register Archive) was conducted on April 2013. All randomised and non-randomised controlled trials evaluating clinical or health economic outcomes of isolated ligament reconstruction versus non-surgical management following ACL rupture were included. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro appraisal tool. When appropriate, meta-analysis was conducted to pool data. Results: From a total of 943 citations, sixteen studies met the eligibility criteria. These included 1397 participants, 825 who received ACL reconstruction versus 592 who were managed non-surgically. The methodological quality of the literature was poor. The findings indicated that whilst reconstructed ACL offers significantly greater objective tibiofemoral stability (p<. 0.001), there appears limited evidence to suggest a superiority between reconstruction versus non-surgical management in functional outcomes. There was a small difference between the management strategies in respect to the development of osteoarthritis during the initial 20. years following index management strategy (Odds Ratio 1.56; p=0.05). Conclusions: The current literature is insufficient to base clinical decision-making with respect to treatment opinions for people following ACL rupture. Whilst based on a poor evidence, the current evidence would indicate that people following ACL rupture should receive non-operative interventions before surgical intervention is considered.
机译:目的:本研究的目的是确定治疗ACL破裂后人员的最佳临床和具有成本效益的策略。方法:对已发表(AMED,CINAHL,MEDLINE,EMBASE,PubMed,psycINFO和Cochrane图书馆)和未发表的文献(OpenGrey,WHO国际临床试验注册平台,当前对照试验和英国国家研究注册档案库)进行系统的审查这项研究于2013年4月进行。该研究包括所有评估独立韧带重建与ACL破裂后非手术治疗的临床或健康经济结果的随机和非随机对照试验。使用PEDro评估工具评估方法学质量。在适当的时候,进行荟萃分析以汇总数据。结果:在总共943次引用中,有16项研究符合资格标准。其中包括1397名参与者,其中825名接受了ACL重建,而592名接受了非手术治疗。文献的方法学质量很差。研究结果表明,尽管重建的ACL可以提供更大的客观胫股稳定性(p <.0.001),但似乎有限的证据表明重建与非手术治疗在功能预后之间具有优势。在指数管理策略实施后的最初20年中,就骨关节炎的发展而言,管理策略之间存在微小差异(赔率1.56; p = 0.05)。结论:目前的文献不足以根据ACL破裂后患者的治疗意见做出临床决策。尽管证据不足,但目前的证据表明,ACL破裂后的人们应在考虑手术干预之前接受非手术干预。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号