...
首页> 外文期刊>Arthroscopy: the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association >Systemic Review of Anatomic Single-Versus Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Does Femoral Tunnel Drilling Technique Matter?
【24h】

Systemic Review of Anatomic Single-Versus Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Does Femoral Tunnel Drilling Technique Matter?

机译:系统性的解剖单引号和审查Double-Bundle前交叉韧带重建:股骨隧道钻孔技术问题?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Purpose: To provide an up-to-date assessment of the difference between anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (DB-ACLR) and anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction (SB-ACLR). We hypothesized that anatomic SB-ACLR using independent femoral drilling technique would be able to achieve kinematic stability as with anatomic DB-ACLR. Methods: A comprehensive Internet search was performed to identify all therapeutic trials of anatomic DB-ACLR versus anatomic SB-ACLR. Only clinical studies of Level I and II evidence were included. The comparative outcomes were instrument-measured anterior laxity, Lachman test, pivot shift, clinical outcomes including objective/subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale and complication rates of extension/flexion deficits, graft failure, and early osteoarthritis. Subgroup analyses were performed for femoral tunnel drilling techniques including independent drilling and transtibial (TT) drilling. Results: Twenty-two clinical trials of 2,261 anatomically ACL-reconstructed patients were included in the meta-analysis. Via TT drilling technique, anatomic DB-ACLR led to improved instrument-measured anterior laxity with a standard mean difference (SMD) of -0.42 (95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.81 to -0.02), less rotational instability measured by pivot shift (SMD = 2.76, 95% CI = 1.24 to 6.16), and higher objective IKDC score with odds ratio (OR) of 2.28 (95% CI = 1.19 to 4.36). Via independent drilling technique, anatomic DB-ACLR yielded better pivot shift (SMD = 2.04, 95% CI = 1.36 to 3.05). Anatomic DB-ACLR also revealed statistical significance in subjective IKDC score compared with anatomic SB-ACLR (SMD = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.05 to 0.49). Conclusions: Anatomic DB-ACLR showed better anterior and rotational stability and higher objective IKDC score than anatomic SB-ACLR via TT drilling technique. Via independent drilling technique, however, anatomic DB-ACLR only showed superiority of rotational stability. All clinical function outcomes except subjective IKDC score were not significantly different between anatomic DB-ACLR and SB-ACLR.
机译:目的:提供一个最新的评估解剖double-bundle之间的区别前交叉韧带(ACL)重建(DB-ACLR)和解剖单包ACL重建(SB-ACLR)。解剖SB-ACLR使用独立的股钻井技术能够实现与解剖DB-ACLR运动稳定。方法:一个全面的互联网搜索用于识别所有的治疗试验解剖DB-ACLR与解剖SB-ACLR。临床研究水平I和II的证据包括在内。instrument-measured前松弛,拉赫曼测试,主转变,包括临床结果客观/主观国际膝盖文档委员会(IKDC)得分,Lysholm分数,Tegner活动规模和并发症扩展/弯曲的赤字,贪污失败,和早期骨关节炎。分析股骨隧道钻井技术包括独立钻探和transtibial (TT)钻井。22 2261解剖的临床试验ACL-reconstructed患者中荟萃分析。解剖DB-ACLR导致改善instrument-measured前松弛了标准平均差(SMD) -0.42 (95%可信区间[CI] = -0.81 - -0.02),更少旋转不稳定的主转变(SMD = 2.76, 95% CI = 1.24 - 6.16),甚至更高客观IKDC分数优势比(或)为2.28(95% CI = 1.19 - 4.36)。技术、解剖DB-ACLR产生更好的主转变(SMD = 2.04, 95% CI = 1.36 - 3.05)。解剖DB-ACLR还揭示了统计意义主观IKDC分数相比与解剖SB-ACLR (SMD = 0.27, 95% CI = 0.050.49)。前和旋转稳定,更好更高的目标比解剖SB-ACLR IKDC得分通过TT钻井技术。钻井技术,然而,解剖DB-ACLR只显示旋转稳定的优势。所有临床功能除了主观的结果IKDC得分没有显著不同解剖DB-ACLR和SB-ACLR之间。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
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