膝关节支撑对前交叉韧带重建术后临床效果的影响:前瞻性随机对照研究

IF 1.5 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Ukris Gunadham , Patarawan Woratanarat
{"title":"膝关节支撑对前交叉韧带重建术后临床效果的影响:前瞻性随机对照研究","authors":"Ukris Gunadham ,&nbsp;Patarawan Woratanarat","doi":"10.1016/j.asmart.2024.01.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>While there is a consensus against bracing after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, the question of its potential benefits, especially in cases involving meniscus repair, as well as its routine use by the majority of clinicians, remains a topic of debate. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of bracing in relation to clinical scores after ACL reconstruction, regardless of meniscus surgery.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This randomised controlled study involved patients aged 15–55 years who underwent arthroscopic ACL reconstruction surgery. All eligible patients were assigned into two groups: one group received an adjustable frame with a four-point fixation knee brace for a four-week period, while the other did not.</p><p>A single experienced surgeon performed standard anatomical single-bundle ACL reconstruction. All patients, irrespective of whether they underwent meniscus repair, followed the same rehabilitation protocol. Knee functional questionnaires, including the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Lysholm score, Tegner Activity Scale, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and examinations, were collected preoperatively, at six months, one year, and two years postoperatively. The study employed an intention-to-treat analysis and multilevel mixed-effects generalised linear models to compare continuous outcomes between the groups, adjusting for the times of follow-up.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 84 patients (42 patients per group) comprised of 75 males (89 %) and average age of 30 ± 9.4 years old. Patient-reported function, physical examination findings, and surgical characteristics were comparable between the two groups. (P-value &gt;0.05) Both groups demonstrated significant improvement in IKDC and Lysholm scores at the end of the two-year follow-up period. (P-value &lt;0.0001) In multivariate analysis, bracing was significantly associated with lower Tegner activity scale than the non-brace group after adjustment for VAS and time (coefficient −0.49, 95 % confidence interval −0.87, −0.10, P-value = 0.013). None of the graft ruptures were reported, and there was no significant difference of return to sports between the groups at the end of the follow-up.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The study suggests that knee bracing after ACL reconstruction, regardless of any additional meniscus procedures, fails to enhance subjective or objective outcomes and could potentially have a negative impact on the Tegner activity scale, although the difference is not clinically significant. The routine use of a postoperative brace should be discontinued.</p></div><div><h3>Level of evidence</h3><p>Level I, Randomised controlled trial with no negative criteria.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":44283,"journal":{"name":"Asia-Pacific Journal of Sport Medicine Arthroscopy Rehabilitation and Technology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214687324000062/pdfft?md5=35e2fc92d7adae9624dd01499742e933&pid=1-s2.0-S2214687324000062-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of knee bracing on clinical outcomes following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A prospective randomised controlled study\",\"authors\":\"Ukris Gunadham ,&nbsp;Patarawan Woratanarat\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.asmart.2024.01.006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>While there is a consensus against bracing after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, the question of its potential benefits, especially in cases involving meniscus repair, as well as its routine use by the majority of clinicians, remains a topic of debate. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of bracing in relation to clinical scores after ACL reconstruction, regardless of meniscus surgery.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This randomised controlled study involved patients aged 15–55 years who underwent arthroscopic ACL reconstruction surgery. All eligible patients were assigned into two groups: one group received an adjustable frame with a four-point fixation knee brace for a four-week period, while the other did not.</p><p>A single experienced surgeon performed standard anatomical single-bundle ACL reconstruction. All patients, irrespective of whether they underwent meniscus repair, followed the same rehabilitation protocol. Knee functional questionnaires, including the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Lysholm score, Tegner Activity Scale, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and examinations, were collected preoperatively, at six months, one year, and two years postoperatively. The study employed an intention-to-treat analysis and multilevel mixed-effects generalised linear models to compare continuous outcomes between the groups, adjusting for the times of follow-up.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 84 patients (42 patients per group) comprised of 75 males (89 %) and average age of 30 ± 9.4 years old. Patient-reported function, physical examination findings, and surgical characteristics were comparable between the two groups. (P-value &gt;0.05) Both groups demonstrated significant improvement in IKDC and Lysholm scores at the end of the two-year follow-up period. (P-value &lt;0.0001) In multivariate analysis, bracing was significantly associated with lower Tegner activity scale than the non-brace group after adjustment for VAS and time (coefficient −0.49, 95 % confidence interval −0.87, −0.10, P-value = 0.013). None of the graft ruptures were reported, and there was no significant difference of return to sports between the groups at the end of the follow-up.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The study suggests that knee bracing after ACL reconstruction, regardless of any additional meniscus procedures, fails to enhance subjective or objective outcomes and could potentially have a negative impact on the Tegner activity scale, although the difference is not clinically significant. The routine use of a postoperative brace should be discontinued.</p></div><div><h3>Level of evidence</h3><p>Level I, Randomised controlled trial with no negative criteria.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44283,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asia-Pacific Journal of Sport Medicine Arthroscopy Rehabilitation and Technology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214687324000062/pdfft?md5=35e2fc92d7adae9624dd01499742e933&pid=1-s2.0-S2214687324000062-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asia-Pacific Journal of Sport Medicine Arthroscopy Rehabilitation and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214687324000062\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia-Pacific Journal of Sport Medicine Arthroscopy Rehabilitation and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214687324000062","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的虽然人们一致反对在前交叉韧带(ACL)重建术后进行支撑,但其潜在益处(尤其是在涉及半月板修复的病例中)以及大多数临床医生的常规使用问题仍是一个争论不休的话题。本研究旨在评估支撑对前交叉韧带重建后临床评分的有效性,无论是否进行了半月板手术。所有符合条件的患者被分为两组:一组接受为期四周的四点固定可调式护膝架,另一组则不接受护膝架。所有患者,无论是否接受半月板修复,都遵循相同的康复方案。研究人员在术前、术后六个月、一年和两年收集了膝关节功能问卷,包括国际膝关节文献委员会(IKDC)评分、Lysholm评分、Tegner活动量表、视觉模拟量表(VAS)和检查。研究采用了意向治疗分析和多层次混合效应广义线性模型来比较各组间的连续性结果,并对随访时间进行了调整。 结果 84 名患者(每组 42 名)中有 75 名男性(89%),平均年龄为 30 ± 9.4 岁。患者报告的功能、体格检查结果和手术特征在两组之间具有可比性。(在两年随访期结束时,两组患者的 IKDC 和 Lysholm 评分均有显著改善。(P值<0.0001)在多变量分析中,对VAS和时间进行调整后,支架组的Tegner活动量评分明显低于非支架组(系数为-0.49,95%置信区间为-0.87,-0.10,P值=0.013)。结论:该研究表明,前交叉韧带重建术后无论是否进行了半月板手术,膝关节支具都无法改善主观或客观结果,并可能对 Tegner 活动量表产生负面影响,尽管这种差异在临床上并不显著。证据级别I级,随机对照试验,无否定标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effect of knee bracing on clinical outcomes following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A prospective randomised controlled study

Objectives

While there is a consensus against bracing after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, the question of its potential benefits, especially in cases involving meniscus repair, as well as its routine use by the majority of clinicians, remains a topic of debate. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of bracing in relation to clinical scores after ACL reconstruction, regardless of meniscus surgery.

Methods

This randomised controlled study involved patients aged 15–55 years who underwent arthroscopic ACL reconstruction surgery. All eligible patients were assigned into two groups: one group received an adjustable frame with a four-point fixation knee brace for a four-week period, while the other did not.

A single experienced surgeon performed standard anatomical single-bundle ACL reconstruction. All patients, irrespective of whether they underwent meniscus repair, followed the same rehabilitation protocol. Knee functional questionnaires, including the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Lysholm score, Tegner Activity Scale, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and examinations, were collected preoperatively, at six months, one year, and two years postoperatively. The study employed an intention-to-treat analysis and multilevel mixed-effects generalised linear models to compare continuous outcomes between the groups, adjusting for the times of follow-up.

Results

A total of 84 patients (42 patients per group) comprised of 75 males (89 %) and average age of 30 ± 9.4 years old. Patient-reported function, physical examination findings, and surgical characteristics were comparable between the two groups. (P-value >0.05) Both groups demonstrated significant improvement in IKDC and Lysholm scores at the end of the two-year follow-up period. (P-value <0.0001) In multivariate analysis, bracing was significantly associated with lower Tegner activity scale than the non-brace group after adjustment for VAS and time (coefficient −0.49, 95 % confidence interval −0.87, −0.10, P-value = 0.013). None of the graft ruptures were reported, and there was no significant difference of return to sports between the groups at the end of the follow-up.

Conclusion

The study suggests that knee bracing after ACL reconstruction, regardless of any additional meniscus procedures, fails to enhance subjective or objective outcomes and could potentially have a negative impact on the Tegner activity scale, although the difference is not clinically significant. The routine use of a postoperative brace should be discontinued.

Level of evidence

Level I, Randomised controlled trial with no negative criteria.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
审稿时长
98 days
期刊介绍: The Asia-Pacific Journal of Sports Medicine, Arthroscopy, Rehabilitation and Technology (AP-SMART) is the official peer-reviewed, open access journal of the Asia-Pacific Knee, Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine Society (APKASS) and the Japanese Orthopaedic Society of Knee, Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine (JOSKAS). It is published quarterly, in January, April, July and October, by Elsevier. The mission of AP-SMART is to inspire clinicians, practitioners, scientists and engineers to work towards a common goal to improve quality of life in the international community. The Journal publishes original research, reviews, editorials, perspectives, and letters to the Editor. Multidisciplinary research with collaboration amongst clinicians and scientists from different disciplines will be the trend in the coming decades. AP-SMART provides a platform for the exchange of new clinical and scientific information in the most precise and expeditious way to achieve timely dissemination of information and cross-fertilization of ideas.
×
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