Clinical outcomes of combined anterior cruciate ligament and anterolateral ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 4.1 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Diego Ariel de Lima, Lana Lacerda de Lima, Nayara Gomes Reis de Souza, Rodrigo Amorim de Moraes Perez, Marcel Faraco Sobrado, Tales Mollica Guimarães, Camilo Partezani Helito
{"title":"Clinical outcomes of combined anterior cruciate ligament and anterolateral ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Diego Ariel de Lima,&nbsp;Lana Lacerda de Lima,&nbsp;Nayara Gomes Reis de Souza,&nbsp;Rodrigo Amorim de Moraes Perez,&nbsp;Marcel Faraco Sobrado,&nbsp;Tales Mollica Guimarães,&nbsp;Camilo Partezani Helito","doi":"10.1186/s43019-021-00115-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the clinical outcomes of isolated anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with combined reconstruction of the ACL and anterolateral ligament (ALL) of the knee.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A search was conducted on the PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases, in line with the PRISMA protocol. The indexation terms used were \"anterior cruciate ligament\" OR \"acl\" AND \"anterolateral ligament\" AND \"reconstruction.\" Articles that compared patients submitted to combined ACL and ALL reconstruction with those submitted to isolated reconstruction of the ACL, with levels of evidence I, II, and III, were included. Studies with follow-up of less than 2 years and articles that did not use \"anatomical\" techniques for ALL reconstruction, such as extraarticular tenodesis, were excluded. A meta-analysis with R software was conducted, with a random effects model, presented as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD), with a 95% confidence level (CI) and statistically significant at p < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten articles were selected, with a total of 1495 patients, most of whom were men, of whom 674 submitted to ACL and ALL reconstruction and 821 to isolated ACL reconstruction. Combined ACL and ALL reconstruction exhibited a statistically significant advantage in residual pivot shift (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.24-0.47, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%, p < 0.01), rerupture rate (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.19-0.62, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%, p < 0.01), Lachman test (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40-0.86, I<sup>2</sup> = 21%, p < 0.01), and postoperative Lysholm score (MD 2.28, CI 95% 0.75-3.81, I<sup>2</sup> = 73%, p < 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Combined ACL and ALL reconstruction obtained better postoperative clinical outcomes when compared with isolated ACL reconstruction, especially in reducing residual pivot shift and rerupture rate.</p>","PeriodicalId":17886,"journal":{"name":"Knee Surgery & Related Research","volume":"33 1","pages":"33"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8461945/pdf/","citationCount":"27","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Knee Surgery & Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s43019-021-00115-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 27

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the clinical outcomes of isolated anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with combined reconstruction of the ACL and anterolateral ligament (ALL) of the knee.

Methods: A search was conducted on the PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases, in line with the PRISMA protocol. The indexation terms used were "anterior cruciate ligament" OR "acl" AND "anterolateral ligament" AND "reconstruction." Articles that compared patients submitted to combined ACL and ALL reconstruction with those submitted to isolated reconstruction of the ACL, with levels of evidence I, II, and III, were included. Studies with follow-up of less than 2 years and articles that did not use "anatomical" techniques for ALL reconstruction, such as extraarticular tenodesis, were excluded. A meta-analysis with R software was conducted, with a random effects model, presented as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD), with a 95% confidence level (CI) and statistically significant at p < 0.05.

Results: Ten articles were selected, with a total of 1495 patients, most of whom were men, of whom 674 submitted to ACL and ALL reconstruction and 821 to isolated ACL reconstruction. Combined ACL and ALL reconstruction exhibited a statistically significant advantage in residual pivot shift (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.24-0.47, I2 = 0%, p < 0.01), rerupture rate (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.19-0.62, I2 = 0%, p < 0.01), Lachman test (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40-0.86, I2 = 21%, p < 0.01), and postoperative Lysholm score (MD 2.28, CI 95% 0.75-3.81, I2 = 73%, p < 0.01).

Conclusions: Combined ACL and ALL reconstruction obtained better postoperative clinical outcomes when compared with isolated ACL reconstruction, especially in reducing residual pivot shift and rerupture rate.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

前交叉韧带联合前外侧韧带重建的临床结果:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:比较单纯前交叉韧带(ACL)重建与联合前交叉韧带(ALL)重建的临床效果。方法:检索PubMed、Medline、Google Scholar、EMBASE和Cochrane图书馆数据库,按照PRISMA协议进行检索。使用的索引术语是“前交叉韧带”或“acl”和“前外侧韧带”和“重建”。比较联合ACL和ALL重建患者与单独ACL重建患者的文章,证据等级为I、II和III。随访时间少于2年的研究和未使用“解剖学”技术进行ALL重建(如关节外肌腱固定术)的文章被排除在外。采用R软件进行meta分析,采用随机效应模型,以风险比(RR)或平均差(MD)表示,95%置信水平(CI), p有统计学意义。结果:选择10篇文章,共1495例患者,其中大部分为男性,其中674例行ACL和ALL重建,821例行孤立ACL重建。ACL联合ALL重建在残余支点移位方面具有统计学意义(RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.24-0.47, I2 = 0%, p 2 = 0%, p 2 = 21%, p 2 = 73%, p)结论:ACL联合ALL重建与单独ACL重建相比,术后临床效果更好,特别是在减少残余支点移位和再破裂率方面。
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
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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