首页> 外文期刊>International Orthopaedics >Allograft versus autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: An up-to-date meta-analysis of prospective studies
【24h】

Allograft versus autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: An up-to-date meta-analysis of prospective studies

机译:同种异体移植与自体移植重建前交叉韧带:前瞻性研究的最新荟萃分析

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Purpose: Although a large number of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions are performed annually, there remains a considerable amount of controversy over whether an autograft or an allograft should be used. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes of allograft and autograft in primary ACL reconstruction. Methods: The authors systematically searched electronic databases to identify prospective studies which compared allografts with autografts for primary ACL reconstruction. The results of the eligible studies were analysed in terms of instrumented laxity measurements, Lachman test, Pivot Shift test, objective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Scores, Lysholm Scores, Tegner Scores, and clinical failures. Study quality was assessed and relevant data were extracted independently by two reviewers. A random effect model was used to pool the data. Statistical heterogeneity between trials was evaluated by the chi-square and I-square tests. Results: Nine studies, with 410 patients in the autograft and 408 patients in the allograft group, met the inclusion criteria. Five studies compared bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) grafts, and four compared soft-tissue grafts. Four studies were randomized controlled trials, and five were prospective cohort studies. The results of the meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences between allograft and autograft on all the outcomes in terms of instrumented laxity measurements (P = 0.59), Lachman test (P = 0.41), Pivot Shift test (P = 0.88), objective IKDC Scores (P = 0.87), Lysholm Scores (P = 0.79), Tegner Scores (P = 0.06), and clinical failures (P = 0.68). These findings were still robust during the sensitivity analysis. However, a subgroup analysis of Tegner scores by involving only BPTB grafts showed a statistical difference in favour of autografts (P = 0.005). Conclusions: There was insufficient evidence to identify which of the two types of grafts was significantly better for ACL reconstruction, though the subgroup analysis indicated that reconstruction with BPTB autograft might allow patients to return to higher levels of activity in comparison with BPTB allograft. More high-quality randomized controlled trials with specified age and activity level are highly required before drawing a reliable conclusion. ? 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
机译:目的:尽管每年都要进行大量的前交叉韧带(ACL)重建,但对于应使用自体移植还是同种异体移植仍存在大量争议。这项荟萃分析的目的是比较同种异体移植和自体移植在原发性ACL重建中的临床结果。方法:作者系统地搜索电子数据库以鉴定前瞻性研究,该研究比较了同种异体移植物与自体移植物用于原发性ACL重建的情况。符合条件的研究结果通过仪器测量的松弛度,Lachman检验,Pivot Shift检验,客观的国际膝关节文献委员会(IKDC)得分,Lysholm得分,Tegner得分和临床失败进行了分析。评估了研究质量,并由两名审核员独立提取了相关数据。使用随机效应模型来汇总数据。试验之间的统计异质性通过卡方检验和I平方检验进行评估。结果:9项研究(包括自体移植的410例患者和同种异体移植的408例患者)符合纳入标准。五项研究比较了-骨腱-骨(BPTB)移植物,四项比较了软组织移植物。四项研究为随机对照试验,五项为前瞻性队列研究。荟萃分析的结果表明,同种异体移植和自体移植之间的所有结果在仪器测量的松弛度(P = 0.59),拉赫曼检验(P = 0.41),枢轴位移检验(P = 0.88)方面均无显着差异。 ,客观IKDC评分(P = 0.87),Lysholm评分(P = 0.79),Tegner评分(P = 0.06)和临床失败(P = 0.68)。在敏感性分析期间,这些发现仍然很可靠。然而,仅涉及BPTB移植物的Tegner评分的亚组分析显示,在支持自体移植物方面存在统计学差异(P = 0.005)。结论:没有足够的证据来确定两种类型的移植物中哪一种对于ACL重建而言明显更好,尽管亚组分析表明,与BPTB同种异体移植相比,使用BPTB自体移植进行重建可能使患者恢复较高的活动水平。在得出可靠的结论之前,迫切需要具有指定年龄和活动水平的更多高质量随机对照试验。 ? 2012年施普林格出版社柏林海德堡。

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