PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To perform a meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair and ACL reconstruction for acute ACL rupture.
METHODS: We searched Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases to seek relevant studies. Clinical outcomes included failure rate, hardware removal rate, anteroposterior (AP) knee laxity, and patient-reported outcomes. In addition, subgroup analysis was carried out according to repair techniques, rupture locations, and study designs. Funnel plots were used to detect publication bias. All statistical analysis was performed using STATA (version 14.2, StataCorp).
RESULTS: A total of 10 articles were included in this study, comprising 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 5 cohort studies, involving a total of 549 patients. We found no statistical differences between the ACL repair and ACL reconstruction in the following outcomes: failure rate, AP knee laxity, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Lysholm score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome (KOOS) Score, and Tegner score. However, the ACL repair group had a higher hardware removal rate. Except for AP knee laxity results on different repair techniques, there was no statistical difference in other subgroup analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with ACL reconstruction, ACL repair shows similar results in clinical outcomes, and it is promising to be an effective alternative treatment for acute ACL rupture. Larger samples and higher-quality studies are needed to support our results and further explore the advantages of ACL repair in other aspects.
METHODS: Level III.
METHODS: We searched Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases to seek relevant studies. Clinical outcomes included failure rate, hardware removal rate, anteroposterior (AP) knee laxity, and patient-reported outcomes. In addition, subgroup analysis was carried out according to repair techniques, rupture locations, and study designs. Funnel plots were used to detect publication bias. All statistical analysis was performed using STATA (version 14.2, StataCorp).
RESULTS: A total of 10 articles were included in this study, comprising 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 5 cohort studies, involving a total of 549 patients. We found no statistical differences between the ACL repair and ACL reconstruction in the following outcomes: failure rate, AP knee laxity, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Lysholm score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome (KOOS) Score, and Tegner score. However, the ACL repair group had a higher hardware removal rate. Except for AP knee laxity results on different repair techniques, there was no statistical difference in other subgroup analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with ACL reconstruction, ACL repair shows similar results in clinical outcomes, and it is promising to be an effective alternative treatment for acute ACL rupture. Larger samples and higher-quality studies are needed to support our results and further explore the advantages of ACL repair in other aspects.
METHODS: Level III.
摘要：
目的：进行荟萃分析，比较前交叉韧带（ACL）修复和ACL重建治疗急性ACL断裂的临床效果。
方法：我们搜索了Pubmed，Embase,Cochrane图书馆,和WebofScience数据库寻求相关研究。临床结果包括失败率，硬件去除率，前后（AP）膝关节松弛，和患者报告的结果。此外,根据修复技术进行亚组分析，破裂位置,和研究设计。漏斗图用于检测发表偏倚。所有统计分析均使用STATA（14.2版，StataCorp）进行。
结果：本研究共纳入10篇文章，包括5项随机对照试验（RCT）和5项队列研究，共涉及549名患者。我们发现ACL修复和ACL重建在以下结果中没有统计学差异：故障率，AP膝盖松弛,国际膝关节文献委员会（IKDC）评分，Lysholm得分,膝关节损伤和骨关节炎结果（KOOS）评分，和Tegner得分。然而,ACL修复组的硬件去除率较高.除了不同修复技术的AP膝关节松弛结果外，其他亚组分析无统计学差异.
结论：与ACL重建相比，ACL修复在临床结果中显示相似的结果，有望成为急性ACL破裂的有效替代治疗方法。需要更大的样本和更高质量的研究来支持我们的结果，并进一步探索ACL修复在其他方面的优势。
方法：三级。
方法：我们搜索了Pubmed，Embase,Cochrane图书馆,和WebofScience数据库寻求相关研究。临床结果包括失败率，硬件去除率，前后（AP）膝关节松弛，和患者报告的结果。此外,根据修复技术进行亚组分析，破裂位置,和研究设计。漏斗图用于检测发表偏倚。所有统计分析均使用STATA（14.2版，StataCorp）进行。
结果：本研究共纳入10篇文章，包括5项随机对照试验（RCT）和5项队列研究，共涉及549名患者。我们发现ACL修复和ACL重建在以下结果中没有统计学差异：故障率，AP膝盖松弛,国际膝关节文献委员会（IKDC）评分，Lysholm得分,膝关节损伤和骨关节炎结果（KOOS）评分，和Tegner得分。然而,ACL修复组的硬件去除率较高.除了不同修复技术的AP膝关节松弛结果外，其他亚组分析无统计学差异.
结论：与ACL重建相比，ACL修复在临床结果中显示相似的结果，有望成为急性ACL破裂的有效替代治疗方法。需要更大的样本和更高质量的研究来支持我们的结果，并进一步探索ACL修复在其他方面的优势。
方法：三级。
