Single anchor versus double anchor for arthroscopic anterior talofibular ligament repair: A systematic review and mate-analysis of cohort studies.

IF 1.6 4区 医学
DingYuan Fan, XiaoHua Liu, Lei Zhang
{"title":"Single anchor versus double anchor for arthroscopic anterior talofibular ligament repair: A systematic review and mate-analysis of cohort studies.","authors":"DingYuan Fan, XiaoHua Liu, Lei Zhang","doi":"10.1177/10225536231217914","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To determine whether a double anchor is more effective than a single anchor in the surgical repair of the anterior talofibular ligament (ATFL) in patients with ankle instability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library to identify potential studies that compared the clinical outcomes of double anchors and single anchors for ATFL repair from inception to July 31st, 2023. The study aligned with the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines and checklist. The Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool was used to evaluate methodologic quality and risk of bias. The meta-analysis was performed with random effects. Outcomes, including American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society Score (AOFAS), Karlsson Ankle Functional Score (KAFS), Tegner activity score, return to sport rate, complications and revision surgery events, were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 845 articles were identified after an initial search of the three databases. Four retrospective studies involving 231 individuals were included for further analysis. There was no significant difference between the single-anchor group and the two-anchor group in terms of the AOFAS (risk ratio, -0.44, [-2.22; 1.34]) or KAFS (mean difference, -2.81, [-6.87; 1.25]). However, in terms of the Tegner activity score and the return to sport rate, the single-anchor group had significantly lower scores and longer times than the double-anchor group. No complications or revision surgery events were reported.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients with chronic ankle instability, both single anchors and double anchors can provide good functional outcomes. For patients who participate in physically demanding sports, double anchors may be a superior option.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level Ⅲ, meta-analysis of Level Ⅲ.</p>","PeriodicalId":16608,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery","volume":"31 3","pages":"10225536231217914"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10225536231217914","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To determine whether a double anchor is more effective than a single anchor in the surgical repair of the anterior talofibular ligament (ATFL) in patients with ankle instability.

Methods: This study searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library to identify potential studies that compared the clinical outcomes of double anchors and single anchors for ATFL repair from inception to July 31st, 2023. The study aligned with the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines and checklist. The Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool was used to evaluate methodologic quality and risk of bias. The meta-analysis was performed with random effects. Outcomes, including American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society Score (AOFAS), Karlsson Ankle Functional Score (KAFS), Tegner activity score, return to sport rate, complications and revision surgery events, were recorded.

Results: A total of 845 articles were identified after an initial search of the three databases. Four retrospective studies involving 231 individuals were included for further analysis. There was no significant difference between the single-anchor group and the two-anchor group in terms of the AOFAS (risk ratio, -0.44, [-2.22; 1.34]) or KAFS (mean difference, -2.81, [-6.87; 1.25]). However, in terms of the Tegner activity score and the return to sport rate, the single-anchor group had significantly lower scores and longer times than the double-anchor group. No complications or revision surgery events were reported.

Conclusions: In patients with chronic ankle instability, both single anchors and double anchors can provide good functional outcomes. For patients who participate in physically demanding sports, double anchors may be a superior option.

Level of evidence: Level Ⅲ, meta-analysis of Level Ⅲ.

单锚与双锚在关节镜下距腓骨前韧带修复中的对比:队列研究的系统回顾和配对分析。
目的:确定双锚是否比单锚在踝关节不稳患者距腓骨前韧带(ATFL)的手术修复中更有效。方法:本研究检索PubMed, Embase和Cochrane图书馆,以确定从成立到2023年7月31日,双锚和单锚用于ATFL修复的临床结果比较的潜在研究。该研究符合2020年系统审查首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南和清单。使用非随机干预研究的偏倚风险(ROBINS-I)工具评估方法学质量和偏倚风险。meta分析采用随机效应。结果包括美国骨科足踝社会评分(AOFAS)、Karlsson踝关节功能评分(KAFS)、Tegner活动评分、恢复运动率、并发症和翻修手术事件。结果:对三个数据库进行初步检索后,共鉴定出845篇文献。四项涉及231人的回顾性研究被纳入进一步分析。单锚点组与双锚点组在AOFAS方面无显著差异(风险比,-0.44,[-2.22;1.34])或KAFS(平均差值,-2.81,[-6.87;1.25])。然而,在Tegner活动评分和重返运动率方面,单锚组的得分明显低于双锚组,时间也明显长于双锚组。无并发症或翻修手术事件报道。结论:对于慢性踝关节不稳定患者,单锚和双锚均可提供良好的功能预后。对于参加体力要求高的运动的患者,双锚可能是一个更好的选择。证据水平:水平Ⅲ,水平Ⅲ的荟萃分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
91
期刊介绍: Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery is an open access peer-reviewed journal publishing original reviews and research articles on all aspects of orthopaedic surgery. It is the official journal of the Asia Pacific Orthopaedic Association. The journal welcomes and will publish materials of a diverse nature, from basic science research to clinical trials and surgical techniques. The journal encourages contributions from all parts of the world, but special emphasis is given to research of particular relevance to the Asia Pacific region.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信