{"title":"早期前交叉韧带治疗可能是急性前交叉韧带和内侧副韧带联合损伤的关键：各种治疗策略的系统回顾","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.arthro.2024.01.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To assess the outcomes of acute, combined, complete anterior cruciate ligament<span> (ACL) and medial collateral ligament (MCL) injuries in the literature.</span></p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A literature search using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Reviews was performed following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. The inclusion criteria were studies reporting outcomes of complete ACL-MCL injuries at a minimum of 12 months’ follow-up. Data were presented as ranges.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Twenty-seven studies with 821 patients were included (mean age, 29 years; 61% male patients; mean follow-up period, 27 months). There were 4 randomized trials, 10 Level III studies, and 13 Level IV studies. Nine different strategies were noted, of which nonoperative MCL treatment with acute ACL reconstruction<span> and acute MCL repair with acute ACL reconstruction were most commonly performed. Nonoperative MCL-ACL treatment and acute MCL repair with nonoperative ACL treatment led to low rates of valgus<span> stability at 30° of flexion (27%-68% and 36%-77%, respectively) compared with acute ACL reconstruction with either nonoperative MCL treatment (80%-100%), acute MCL repair (65%-100%), or acute MCL reconstruction<span> (81%-100%). Lysholm scores were not different between the strategies.</span></span></span></p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Outcomes in this systematic review suggest that ACL stabilization in the acute setting might result in the lowest rates of residual valgus laxity, whereas there is no clear difference between the different MCL treatments along with acute ACL reconstruction. Nonoperative MCL treatment with either nonoperative or delayed ACL reconstruction, as well as acute MCL repair with either nonoperative or delayed ACL reconstruction, leads to higher rates of valgus laxity.</p></div><div><h3>Level of Evidence</h3><p>Level IV, systematic review of Level I to IV studies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55459,"journal":{"name":"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Early Anterior Cruciate Ligament Treatment Might Be Crucial for Acute Combined Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Medial Collateral Ligament Injuries: A Systematic Review of the Various Treatment Strategies\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.arthro.2024.01.009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>To assess the outcomes of acute, combined, complete anterior cruciate ligament<span> (ACL) and medial collateral ligament (MCL) injuries in the literature.</span></p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A literature search using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Reviews was performed following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. The inclusion criteria were studies reporting outcomes of complete ACL-MCL injuries at a minimum of 12 months’ follow-up. Data were presented as ranges.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Twenty-seven studies with 821 patients were included (mean age, 29 years; 61% male patients; mean follow-up period, 27 months). There were 4 randomized trials, 10 Level III studies, and 13 Level IV studies. Nine different strategies were noted, of which nonoperative MCL treatment with acute ACL reconstruction<span> and acute MCL repair with acute ACL reconstruction were most commonly performed. Nonoperative MCL-ACL treatment and acute MCL repair with nonoperative ACL treatment led to low rates of valgus<span> stability at 30° of flexion (27%-68% and 36%-77%, respectively) compared with acute ACL reconstruction with either nonoperative MCL treatment (80%-100%), acute MCL repair (65%-100%), or acute MCL reconstruction<span> (81%-100%). Lysholm scores were not different between the strategies.</span></span></span></p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Outcomes in this systematic review suggest that ACL stabilization in the acute setting might result in the lowest rates of residual valgus laxity, whereas there is no clear difference between the different MCL treatments along with acute ACL reconstruction. Nonoperative MCL treatment with either nonoperative or delayed ACL reconstruction, as well as acute MCL repair with either nonoperative or delayed ACL reconstruction, leads to higher rates of valgus laxity.</p></div><div><h3>Level of Evidence</h3><p>Level IV, systematic review of Level I to IV studies.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55459,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749806324000148\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749806324000148","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Early Anterior Cruciate Ligament Treatment Might Be Crucial for Acute Combined Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Medial Collateral Ligament Injuries: A Systematic Review of the Various Treatment Strategies
Purpose
To assess the outcomes of acute, combined, complete anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and medial collateral ligament (MCL) injuries in the literature.
Methods
A literature search using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Reviews was performed following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. The inclusion criteria were studies reporting outcomes of complete ACL-MCL injuries at a minimum of 12 months’ follow-up. Data were presented as ranges.
Results
Twenty-seven studies with 821 patients were included (mean age, 29 years; 61% male patients; mean follow-up period, 27 months). There were 4 randomized trials, 10 Level III studies, and 13 Level IV studies. Nine different strategies were noted, of which nonoperative MCL treatment with acute ACL reconstruction and acute MCL repair with acute ACL reconstruction were most commonly performed. Nonoperative MCL-ACL treatment and acute MCL repair with nonoperative ACL treatment led to low rates of valgus stability at 30° of flexion (27%-68% and 36%-77%, respectively) compared with acute ACL reconstruction with either nonoperative MCL treatment (80%-100%), acute MCL repair (65%-100%), or acute MCL reconstruction (81%-100%). Lysholm scores were not different between the strategies.
Conclusions
Outcomes in this systematic review suggest that ACL stabilization in the acute setting might result in the lowest rates of residual valgus laxity, whereas there is no clear difference between the different MCL treatments along with acute ACL reconstruction. Nonoperative MCL treatment with either nonoperative or delayed ACL reconstruction, as well as acute MCL repair with either nonoperative or delayed ACL reconstruction, leads to higher rates of valgus laxity.
Level of Evidence
Level IV, systematic review of Level I to IV studies.
期刊介绍：
Nowhere is minimally invasive surgery explained better than in Arthroscopy, the leading peer-reviewed journal in the field. Every issue enables you to put into perspective the usefulness of the various emerging arthroscopic techniques. The advantages and disadvantages of these methods -- along with their applications in various situations -- are discussed in relation to their efficiency, efficacy and cost benefit. As a special incentive, paid subscribers also receive access to the journal expanded website.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
