前交叉韧带重建术后,哪种技术更有利于恢复运动和临床疗效?双束还是单束?随机对照研究。

IF 7.5 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Xinjie Wang, Zijie Xu, Shitang Song, Zimu Mao, Ximeng Huang, Michael Luo, Xiao Zhou, Bingbing Xu, Jing Ye, Yifan Song, Jiakuo Yu
{"title":"前交叉韧带重建术后,哪种技术更有利于恢复运动和临床疗效?双束还是单束?随机对照研究。","authors":"Xinjie Wang, Zijie Xu, Shitang Song, Zimu Mao, Ximeng Huang, Michael Luo, Xiao Zhou, Bingbing Xu, Jing Ye, Yifan Song, Jiakuo Yu","doi":"10.1097/CM9.0000000000003267","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The achievement of an optimal return to sport (RTS) has remained a key goal after sports-related injuries, with the ongoing debate on the effectiveness of different surgical approaches for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture. This study aims to assess clinical outcomes and RTS across various surgical methods, such as anatomical single-bundle reconstruction (ASBR), central-axial single-bundle reconstruction (CASBR), and double-bundle reconstruction (DBR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A randomized clinical trial was conducted, comprising 191 patients who underwent ACL rupture. These patients were divided into three groups based on the ACL reconstruction techniques they received (ASBR, CASBR, DBR). Over the 2-year follow-up period, the study assessed RTS through four single-hop tests, isokinetic extension tests, and limb asymmetry indices. Postoperative graft status was determined using the signal-to-noise quotient (SNQ), while knee function was evaluated using the International Knee Documentation Committee 2000 (IKDC-2000) score, Lysholm score, Tegner score, and degree of knee laxity. A binary logistic regression model was developed to forecast the factors influencing ideal RTS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>DBR (67.63%) and CASBR (58.00%) exhibited higher RTS passing rates compared to ASBR (30.39%; χ2 = 19.57, P <0.05). Quadriceps strength symmetry in the lower limbs was identified as the key determinant of RTS (χ2 = 17.08, P <0.05). The RTS rate was influenced by SNQs of the graft's tibial site (odds ratio: 0.544) and quadriceps strength of the reconstructed knee joint at 60°/s (odds ratio: 6.346). Notably, the DBR group showed enhanced knee stability, evidenced by superior results in the Lachman test (χ2 = 13.49, P <0.01), objective IKDC-2000 (χ2 = 27.02, P = 0.002), and anterior instability test (χ2 = 9.46, P <0.01). Furthermore, DBR demonstrated superior clinical outcomes based on the Lysholm score (DBR: 89.57 ± 7.72, CASBR: 83.00 ± 12.71, ASBR: 83.21 ± 11.95; F = 10.452, P <0.01) and IKDC-2000 score (DBR: 90.95 ± 7.00, CASBR: 84.64 ± 12.68, ASBR: 83.63 ± 11.41; F = 11.78, P <0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For patients with ACL rupture, more ideal RTS rate and clinical outcomes were shown in the DBR group than in the ASBR and CASBR groups. Autograft status and quadriceps strength are postively related to RTS.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05400460).</p>","PeriodicalId":10183,"journal":{"name":"Chinese Medical Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Which technique provides more benefits in return to sports and clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Double-bundle or single-bundle? A randomized controlled study.\",\"authors\":\"Xinjie Wang, Zijie Xu, Shitang Song, Zimu Mao, Ximeng Huang, Michael Luo, Xiao Zhou, Bingbing Xu, Jing Ye, Yifan Song, Jiakuo Yu\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/CM9.0000000000003267\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The achievement of an optimal return to sport (RTS) has remained a key goal after sports-related injuries, with the ongoing debate on the effectiveness of different surgical approaches for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture. This study aims to assess clinical outcomes and RTS across various surgical methods, such as anatomical single-bundle reconstruction (ASBR), central-axial single-bundle reconstruction (CASBR), and double-bundle reconstruction (DBR).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A randomized clinical trial was conducted, comprising 191 patients who underwent ACL rupture. These patients were divided into three groups based on the ACL reconstruction techniques they received (ASBR, CASBR, DBR). Over the 2-year follow-up period, the study assessed RTS through four single-hop tests, isokinetic extension tests, and limb asymmetry indices. Postoperative graft status was determined using the signal-to-noise quotient (SNQ), while knee function was evaluated using the International Knee Documentation Committee 2000 (IKDC-2000) score, Lysholm score, Tegner score, and degree of knee laxity. A binary logistic regression model was developed to forecast the factors influencing ideal RTS.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>DBR (67.63%) and CASBR (58.00%) exhibited higher RTS passing rates compared to ASBR (30.39%; χ2 = 19.57, P <0.05). Quadriceps strength symmetry in the lower limbs was identified as the key determinant of RTS (χ2 = 17.08, P <0.05). The RTS rate was influenced by SNQs of the graft's tibial site (odds ratio: 0.544) and quadriceps strength of the reconstructed knee joint at 60°/s (odds ratio: 6.346). Notably, the DBR group showed enhanced knee stability, evidenced by superior results in the Lachman test (χ2 = 13.49, P <0.01), objective IKDC-2000 (χ2 = 27.02, P = 0.002), and anterior instability test (χ2 = 9.46, P <0.01). Furthermore, DBR demonstrated superior clinical outcomes based on the Lysholm score (DBR: 89.57 ± 7.72, CASBR: 83.00 ± 12.71, ASBR: 83.21 ± 11.95; F = 10.452, P <0.01) and IKDC-2000 score (DBR: 90.95 ± 7.00, CASBR: 84.64 ± 12.68, ASBR: 83.63 ± 11.41; F = 11.78, P <0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For patients with ACL rupture, more ideal RTS rate and clinical outcomes were shown in the DBR group than in the ASBR and CASBR groups. Autograft status and quadriceps strength are postively related to RTS.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05400460).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10183,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chinese Medical Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chinese Medical Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/CM9.0000000000003267\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chinese Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CM9.0000000000003267","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在运动相关损伤后,实现最佳的运动恢复(RTS)一直是一个关键目标,关于前交叉韧带(ACL)断裂的不同手术方法的有效性一直存在争议。本研究旨在评估解剖单束重建(ASBR)、中轴单束重建(CASBR)和双束重建(DBR)等不同手术方法的临床疗效和恢复时间:进行了一项随机临床试验,191 名患者接受了前交叉韧带断裂手术。这些患者根据所接受的前交叉韧带重建技术(ASBR、CASBR、DBR)被分为三组。在为期两年的随访期间,该研究通过四次单跳测试、等速伸展测试和肢体不对称指数对RTS进行了评估。术后移植物状态通过信噪比商(SNQ)确定,膝关节功能则通过国际膝关节文献委员会2000(IKDC-2000)评分、Lysholm评分、Tegner评分和膝关节松弛程度进行评估。我们建立了一个二元逻辑回归模型来预测影响理想 RTS 的因素:结果:DBR(67.63%)和 CASBR(58.00%)的 RTS 通过率高于 ASBR(30.39%;χ2 = 19.57,P 结论:对于前交叉韧带断裂患者,DBR组的RTS通过率和临床疗效比ASBR组和CASBR组更理想。自体移植状态和股四头肌力量与RTS有密切关系:试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05400460)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Which technique provides more benefits in return to sports and clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Double-bundle or single-bundle? A randomized controlled study.

Background: The achievement of an optimal return to sport (RTS) has remained a key goal after sports-related injuries, with the ongoing debate on the effectiveness of different surgical approaches for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture. This study aims to assess clinical outcomes and RTS across various surgical methods, such as anatomical single-bundle reconstruction (ASBR), central-axial single-bundle reconstruction (CASBR), and double-bundle reconstruction (DBR).

Methods: A randomized clinical trial was conducted, comprising 191 patients who underwent ACL rupture. These patients were divided into three groups based on the ACL reconstruction techniques they received (ASBR, CASBR, DBR). Over the 2-year follow-up period, the study assessed RTS through four single-hop tests, isokinetic extension tests, and limb asymmetry indices. Postoperative graft status was determined using the signal-to-noise quotient (SNQ), while knee function was evaluated using the International Knee Documentation Committee 2000 (IKDC-2000) score, Lysholm score, Tegner score, and degree of knee laxity. A binary logistic regression model was developed to forecast the factors influencing ideal RTS.

Results: DBR (67.63%) and CASBR (58.00%) exhibited higher RTS passing rates compared to ASBR (30.39%; χ2 = 19.57, P <0.05). Quadriceps strength symmetry in the lower limbs was identified as the key determinant of RTS (χ2 = 17.08, P <0.05). The RTS rate was influenced by SNQs of the graft's tibial site (odds ratio: 0.544) and quadriceps strength of the reconstructed knee joint at 60°/s (odds ratio: 6.346). Notably, the DBR group showed enhanced knee stability, evidenced by superior results in the Lachman test (χ2 = 13.49, P <0.01), objective IKDC-2000 (χ2 = 27.02, P = 0.002), and anterior instability test (χ2 = 9.46, P <0.01). Furthermore, DBR demonstrated superior clinical outcomes based on the Lysholm score (DBR: 89.57 ± 7.72, CASBR: 83.00 ± 12.71, ASBR: 83.21 ± 11.95; F = 10.452, P <0.01) and IKDC-2000 score (DBR: 90.95 ± 7.00, CASBR: 84.64 ± 12.68, ASBR: 83.63 ± 11.41; F = 11.78, P <0.01).

Conclusion: For patients with ACL rupture, more ideal RTS rate and clinical outcomes were shown in the DBR group than in the ASBR and CASBR groups. Autograft status and quadriceps strength are postively related to RTS.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05400460).

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
Chinese Medical Journal
Chinese Medical Journal 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
4.90%
发文量
19245
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The Chinese Medical Journal (CMJ) is published semimonthly in English by the Chinese Medical Association, and is a peer reviewed general medical journal for all doctors, researchers, and health workers regardless of their medical specialty or type of employment. Established in 1887, it is the oldest medical periodical in China and is distributed worldwide. The journal functions as a window into China’s medical sciences and reflects the advances and progress in China’s medical sciences and technology. It serves the objective of international academic exchange. The journal includes Original Articles, Editorial, Review Articles, Medical Progress, Brief Reports, Case Reports, Viewpoint, Clinical Exchange, Letter,and News,etc. CMJ is abstracted or indexed in many databases including Biological Abstracts, Chemical Abstracts, Index Medicus/Medline, Science Citation Index (SCI), Current Contents, Cancerlit, Health Plan & Administration, Embase, Social Scisearch, Aidsline, Toxline, Biocommercial Abstracts, Arts and Humanities Search, Nuclear Science Abstracts, Water Resources Abstracts, Cab Abstracts, Occupation Safety & Health, etc. In 2007, the impact factor of the journal by SCI is 0.636, and the total citation is 2315.
×
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