一项前瞻性、随机试验:改良Jobe技术与自体股薄肌对接技术用于肘关节尺副韧带重建

Michael C. Ciccotti, Austin M. Looney, Emma E. Johnson, Christopher J. Hadley, Adam Zoga, Levon Nazarian, Michael G. Ciccotti
{"title":"一项前瞻性、随机试验:改良Jobe技术与自体股薄肌对接技术用于肘关节尺副韧带重建","authors":"Michael C. Ciccotti, Austin M. Looney, Emma E. Johnson, Christopher J. Hadley, Adam Zoga, Levon Nazarian, Michael G. Ciccotti","doi":"10.1177/03635465241305741","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background:Ulnar collateral ligament (UCL)reconstruction (UCLR) has transformed UCL injury from career-ending to career-interruptive. The most common surgical techniques are the modified Jobe and docking techniques.Purpose/Hypothesis:The purpose of this study was to perform a prospective, randomized comparison of the modified Jobe versus docking techniques in overhead athletes with respect to patient-reported outcomes (PROs), self-reported baseball-specific metrics, imaging, and complications. It was hypothesized that there would be no significant differences between techniques.Study Design:Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2.Methods:A single-surgeon, single-blinded, prospective, randomized trial was performed comparing the modified Jobe and docking techniques. Patients were blinded to surgical technique. UCLR was performed with uniform gracilis autograft and identical postoperative rehabilitation. Pre- and postoperative PROs (Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic [KJOC] score, Andrews-Timmerman score, and Conway-Jobe score) were obtained. Pre- and postoperative imaging included stress ultrasound (SUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (including magnetic resonance arthrography). Additional information included demographics, anthropometrics, intraoperative data, complications, and self-reported baseball-specific metrics.Results:Eighty patients were randomized, and >80% follow-up was obtained (65/80 [81%]). There were no significant differences with respect to demographics, anthropometrics, preoperative imaging, or preoperative PROs. Surgically, docking had shorter median tourniquet time (91.5 vs 98.0 minutes; P = .001). There were no differences in Andrews-Timmerman score at any time point. Docking demonstrated a higher median KJOC score at 2 years (93.05 vs 79.20; P = .021). There was no difference with respect to return to play (RTP) by the Conway-Jobe scale (80% good to excellent docking vs 69% good to excellent Jobe; P = .501) or time to RTP (13.92 months docking vs 12.85 months Jobe; P = .267). There were no differences in baseball metrics postoperatively. On postoperative SUS, modified Jobe showed greater graft thickness (7.70 vs 6.75 mm; P = .006). Postoperative MRI revealed no differences. There was no difference in complications (Jobe 5.0% vs docking 7.5%; P > .999).Conclusion:The current study identified high rates of good to excellent results with PROs for both techniques, including RTP rates and times. Docking had shorter tourniquet time and higher 2-year KJOC scores. There were no differences in self-reported baseball-specific metrics or postoperative imaging (except graft thickness for modified Jobe by SUS). As the first prospective, randomized trial evaluating the modified Jobe and docking techniques, this study is the definitive substantiation of these two surgical techniques for UCLR. It provides surgeons with confidence to utilize the technique with which they are most comfortable.","PeriodicalId":517411,"journal":{"name":"The American Journal of Sports Medicine","volume":"85 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Prospective, Randomized Trial of the Modified Jobe Versus Docking Techniques With Gracilis Autograft for Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction in the Elbow\",\"authors\":\"Michael C. Ciccotti, Austin M. Looney, Emma E. Johnson, Christopher J. Hadley, Adam Zoga, Levon Nazarian, Michael G. Ciccotti\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/03635465241305741\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background:Ulnar collateral ligament (UCL)reconstruction (UCLR) has transformed UCL injury from career-ending to career-interruptive. The most common surgical techniques are the modified Jobe and docking techniques.Purpose/Hypothesis:The purpose of this study was to perform a prospective, randomized comparison of the modified Jobe versus docking techniques in overhead athletes with respect to patient-reported outcomes (PROs), self-reported baseball-specific metrics, imaging, and complications. It was hypothesized that there would be no significant differences between techniques.Study Design:Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2.Methods:A single-surgeon, single-blinded, prospective, randomized trial was performed comparing the modified Jobe and docking techniques. Patients were blinded to surgical technique. UCLR was performed with uniform gracilis autograft and identical postoperative rehabilitation. Pre- and postoperative PROs (Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic [KJOC] score, Andrews-Timmerman score, and Conway-Jobe score) were obtained. Pre- and postoperative imaging included stress ultrasound (SUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (including magnetic resonance arthrography). Additional information included demographics, anthropometrics, intraoperative data, complications, and self-reported baseball-specific metrics.Results:Eighty patients were randomized, and >80% follow-up was obtained (65/80 [81%]). There were no significant differences with respect to demographics, anthropometrics, preoperative imaging, or preoperative PROs. Surgically, docking had shorter median tourniquet time (91.5 vs 98.0 minutes; P = .001). There were no differences in Andrews-Timmerman score at any time point. Docking demonstrated a higher median KJOC score at 2 years (93.05 vs 79.20; P = .021). There was no difference with respect to return to play (RTP) by the Conway-Jobe scale (80% good to excellent docking vs 69% good to excellent Jobe; P = .501) or time to RTP (13.92 months docking vs 12.85 months Jobe; P = .267). There were no differences in baseball metrics postoperatively. On postoperative SUS, modified Jobe showed greater graft thickness (7.70 vs 6.75 mm; P = .006). Postoperative MRI revealed no differences. There was no difference in complications (Jobe 5.0% vs docking 7.5%; P > .999).Conclusion:The current study identified high rates of good to excellent results with PROs for both techniques, including RTP rates and times. Docking had shorter tourniquet time and higher 2-year KJOC scores. There were no differences in self-reported baseball-specific metrics or postoperative imaging (except graft thickness for modified Jobe by SUS). As the first prospective, randomized trial evaluating the modified Jobe and docking techniques, this study is the definitive substantiation of these two surgical techniques for UCLR. It provides surgeons with confidence to utilize the technique with which they are most comfortable.\",\"PeriodicalId\":517411,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The American Journal of Sports Medicine\",\"volume\":\"85 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The American Journal of Sports Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465241305741\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Journal of Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465241305741","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:尺侧副韧带(Ulnar collateral ligament, UCL)重建术(UCLR)已将尺侧副韧带损伤从职业生涯终结转变为职业生涯中断。最常见的手术技术是改良的Jobe和对接技术。目的/假设:本研究的目的是在患者报告的结果(PROs)、自我报告的棒球特异性指标、影像学和并发症方面,对头顶运动员改良Jobe和对接技术进行前瞻性、随机比较。假设不同的技术之间不会有显著的差异。研究设计:随机对照试验;证据等级2。方法:采用单医生、单盲、前瞻性、随机试验,比较改进的Jobe和对接技术。患者对手术技术一无所知。UCLR采用均匀的自体股薄肌移植和相同的术后康复。获得术前和术后PROs (Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic [KJOC]评分、Andrews-Timmerman评分和Conway-Jobe评分)。术前和术后影像学包括应力超声(SUS)和磁共振成像(包括磁共振关节成像)。其他信息包括人口统计学、人体测量学、术中数据、并发症和自我报告的棒球特定指标。结果:随机选取80例患者,随访率为80%(65/80[81%])。在人口统计学、人体测量学、术前影像学或术前PROs方面没有显著差异。手术上,对接的中位止血带时间更短(91.5分钟vs 98.0分钟;P = .001)。Andrews-Timmerman评分在各时间点均无差异。对接显示2年时KJOC评分中位数更高(93.05 vs 79.20;P = .021)。在康威-乔比量表中,游戏恢复(RTP)没有差异(80%的对接良好到优秀vs 69%的对接良好到优秀;P = .501)或到达RTP的时间(13.92个月对接vs 12.85个月工作;P = 0.267)。术后棒球指标无差异。在术后SUS中,改良的Jobe显示出更大的移植物厚度(7.70 vs 6.75 mm;P = .006)。术后MRI未见差异。并发症发生率无差异(Jobe 5.0% vs对接7.5%;P比;.999)。结论:目前的研究确定了两种技术的高良率和高优率,包括RTP率和时间。对接时止血带时间较短,2年KJOC评分较高。自我报告的棒球特异性指标或术后成像没有差异(SUS改良Jobe的移植物厚度除外)。作为首个评估改良Jobe和对接技术的前瞻性随机试验,本研究明确证实了这两种手术技术对UCLR的疗效。它为外科医生提供了使用他们最舒适的技术的信心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Prospective, Randomized Trial of the Modified Jobe Versus Docking Techniques With Gracilis Autograft for Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction in the Elbow
Background:Ulnar collateral ligament (UCL)reconstruction (UCLR) has transformed UCL injury from career-ending to career-interruptive. The most common surgical techniques are the modified Jobe and docking techniques.Purpose/Hypothesis:The purpose of this study was to perform a prospective, randomized comparison of the modified Jobe versus docking techniques in overhead athletes with respect to patient-reported outcomes (PROs), self-reported baseball-specific metrics, imaging, and complications. It was hypothesized that there would be no significant differences between techniques.Study Design:Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2.Methods:A single-surgeon, single-blinded, prospective, randomized trial was performed comparing the modified Jobe and docking techniques. Patients were blinded to surgical technique. UCLR was performed with uniform gracilis autograft and identical postoperative rehabilitation. Pre- and postoperative PROs (Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic [KJOC] score, Andrews-Timmerman score, and Conway-Jobe score) were obtained. Pre- and postoperative imaging included stress ultrasound (SUS) and magnetic resonance imaging (including magnetic resonance arthrography). Additional information included demographics, anthropometrics, intraoperative data, complications, and self-reported baseball-specific metrics.Results:Eighty patients were randomized, and >80% follow-up was obtained (65/80 [81%]). There were no significant differences with respect to demographics, anthropometrics, preoperative imaging, or preoperative PROs. Surgically, docking had shorter median tourniquet time (91.5 vs 98.0 minutes; P = .001). There were no differences in Andrews-Timmerman score at any time point. Docking demonstrated a higher median KJOC score at 2 years (93.05 vs 79.20; P = .021). There was no difference with respect to return to play (RTP) by the Conway-Jobe scale (80% good to excellent docking vs 69% good to excellent Jobe; P = .501) or time to RTP (13.92 months docking vs 12.85 months Jobe; P = .267). There were no differences in baseball metrics postoperatively. On postoperative SUS, modified Jobe showed greater graft thickness (7.70 vs 6.75 mm; P = .006). Postoperative MRI revealed no differences. There was no difference in complications (Jobe 5.0% vs docking 7.5%; P > .999).Conclusion:The current study identified high rates of good to excellent results with PROs for both techniques, including RTP rates and times. Docking had shorter tourniquet time and higher 2-year KJOC scores. There were no differences in self-reported baseball-specific metrics or postoperative imaging (except graft thickness for modified Jobe by SUS). As the first prospective, randomized trial evaluating the modified Jobe and docking techniques, this study is the definitive substantiation of these two surgical techniques for UCLR. It provides surgeons with confidence to utilize the technique with which they are most comfortable.
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
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信