恢复运动的不同定义、研究质量和结果测量限制了用股四头肌腱自体移植重建腘绳肌和骨-髌肌腱-骨自体移植重建初交叉韧带的比较:一项系统综述。

IF 4.4 1区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
A Scott Emmert, Isaac Hale, Logan P Lake, Paul McMillan, Brian M Johnson, Sarah C Kurkowski, Henry A Kuechly, Brian M Grawe
{"title":"恢复运动的不同定义、研究质量和结果测量限制了用股四头肌腱自体移植重建腘绳肌和骨-髌肌腱-骨自体移植重建初交叉韧带的比较:一项系统综述。","authors":"A Scott Emmert, Isaac Hale, Logan P Lake, Paul McMillan, Brian M Johnson, Sarah C Kurkowski, Henry A Kuechly, Brian M Grawe","doi":"10.1016/j.arthro.2025.03.036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To systematically review the existing literature on RTS outcomes for QT autografts compared to HT and/or BPTB autografts for primary ACLR.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were queried for studies comparing RTS data for ACLR with QT autografts versus HT and/or BPTB autografts in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria were randomized and non-randomized prospective or retrospective studies evaluating primary ACLR containing RTS data for QT autograft and at least one other graft type. Exclusion criteria included patients <18 years of age, patients undergoing revision ACLR, cadaveric/animal studies, and studies lacking graft outcome data. Included studies were analyzed for methodological data, RTS data, quality, and risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten articles (two RCTs, three prospective studies, and five retrospective studies) comprising 1006 reconstructions with a level of evidence of II-III and average follow-up of 8-120 months were included. Non-randomized studies most frequently possessed a MINORS quality rating of \"moderate,\" while half of the randomized studies had a Risk of Bias 2.0 rating of \"some concern of bias.\" Four subjective definitions of RTS were identified: (1) return to pre-injury activity level based on the Tegner activity scale; (2) return to play; (3) return to level I/II (cutting) sports; and (4) return to pre-injury sports. RTS and mean time to RTS rates ranged from 16-100% and 8.4-11.1 months for QT autografts, 32-100% and 8.8 months for HT autografts, and 64-85% and 8.1 months for BPTB autografts.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Primary ACLR with QT autografts demonstrates similar overall RTS rates and mean time to RTS as HT and BPTB autografts. However, insufficient quality and quantity of studies investigating RTS outcomes for QT autografts underscores the unreliability of the current literature and need for high-quality, prospective studies.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III, systematic review of Level II and III studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":55459,"journal":{"name":"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Varying Definitions of Return to Sport, Study Quality, and Outcome Measurements Limit Comparison of Primary ACL Reconstruction with Quadriceps Tendon Autografts to Hamstring and Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Autografts: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"A Scott Emmert, Isaac Hale, Logan P Lake, Paul McMillan, Brian M Johnson, Sarah C Kurkowski, Henry A Kuechly, Brian M Grawe\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.arthro.2025.03.036\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To systematically review the existing literature on RTS outcomes for QT autografts compared to HT and/or BPTB autografts for primary ACLR.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were queried for studies comparing RTS data for ACLR with QT autografts versus HT and/or BPTB autografts in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria were randomized and non-randomized prospective or retrospective studies evaluating primary ACLR containing RTS data for QT autograft and at least one other graft type. Exclusion criteria included patients <18 years of age, patients undergoing revision ACLR, cadaveric/animal studies, and studies lacking graft outcome data. Included studies were analyzed for methodological data, RTS data, quality, and risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten articles (two RCTs, three prospective studies, and five retrospective studies) comprising 1006 reconstructions with a level of evidence of II-III and average follow-up of 8-120 months were included. Non-randomized studies most frequently possessed a MINORS quality rating of \\\"moderate,\\\" while half of the randomized studies had a Risk of Bias 2.0 rating of \\\"some concern of bias.\\\" Four subjective definitions of RTS were identified: (1) return to pre-injury activity level based on the Tegner activity scale; (2) return to play; (3) return to level I/II (cutting) sports; and (4) return to pre-injury sports. RTS and mean time to RTS rates ranged from 16-100% and 8.4-11.1 months for QT autografts, 32-100% and 8.8 months for HT autografts, and 64-85% and 8.1 months for BPTB autografts.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Primary ACLR with QT autografts demonstrates similar overall RTS rates and mean time to RTS as HT and BPTB autografts. However, insufficient quality and quantity of studies investigating RTS outcomes for QT autografts underscores the unreliability of the current literature and need for high-quality, prospective studies.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III, systematic review of Level II and III studies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55459,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-25\",\"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://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2025.03.036\",\"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://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2025.03.036","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:系统回顾现有文献,比较QT自体移植与HT和/或BPTB自体移植治疗原发性ACLR的RTS结果。方法:根据PRISMA指南,查询PubMed/Medline、Scopus、Embase和Cochrane数据库,比较ACLR与QT自体移植与HT和/或BPTB自体移植的RTS数据。纳入标准是随机和非随机的前瞻性或回顾性研究,评估包含QT自体移植物和至少一种其他移植物类型RTS数据的原发性ACLR。结果:纳入10篇文章(2篇rct, 3篇前瞻性研究,5篇回顾性研究),包括1006项重构,证据水平为II-III,平均随访时间为8-120个月。非随机研究通常具有“中度”的未成年人质量评级,而一半的随机研究具有“有一定偏差”的2.0风险评级。本文确定了RTS的四种主观定义:(1)根据Tegner活动量表恢复到损伤前的活动水平;(2)回归游戏;(3)回到一级/二级(切割)运动;(4)回归伤前运动。QT自体移植物的RTS和平均RTS时间率为16-100%和8.4-11.1个月,HT自体移植物为32-100%和8.8个月,BPTB自体移植物为64-85%和8.1个月。结论:原发性ACLR自体QT移植与HT和BPTB自体移植的总体RTS率和平均RTS时间相似。然而,调查QT自体移植物RTS结果的研究质量和数量不足,强调了当前文献的不可靠性,需要进行高质量的前瞻性研究。证据等级:III级,II级和III级研究的系统评价。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Varying Definitions of Return to Sport, Study Quality, and Outcome Measurements Limit Comparison of Primary ACL Reconstruction with Quadriceps Tendon Autografts to Hamstring and Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Autografts: A Systematic Review.

Purpose: To systematically review the existing literature on RTS outcomes for QT autografts compared to HT and/or BPTB autografts for primary ACLR.

Methods: PubMed/Medline, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were queried for studies comparing RTS data for ACLR with QT autografts versus HT and/or BPTB autografts in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Inclusion criteria were randomized and non-randomized prospective or retrospective studies evaluating primary ACLR containing RTS data for QT autograft and at least one other graft type. Exclusion criteria included patients <18 years of age, patients undergoing revision ACLR, cadaveric/animal studies, and studies lacking graft outcome data. Included studies were analyzed for methodological data, RTS data, quality, and risk of bias.

Results: Ten articles (two RCTs, three prospective studies, and five retrospective studies) comprising 1006 reconstructions with a level of evidence of II-III and average follow-up of 8-120 months were included. Non-randomized studies most frequently possessed a MINORS quality rating of "moderate," while half of the randomized studies had a Risk of Bias 2.0 rating of "some concern of bias." Four subjective definitions of RTS were identified: (1) return to pre-injury activity level based on the Tegner activity scale; (2) return to play; (3) return to level I/II (cutting) sports; and (4) return to pre-injury sports. RTS and mean time to RTS rates ranged from 16-100% and 8.4-11.1 months for QT autografts, 32-100% and 8.8 months for HT autografts, and 64-85% and 8.1 months for BPTB autografts.

Conclusions: Primary ACLR with QT autografts demonstrates similar overall RTS rates and mean time to RTS as HT and BPTB autografts. However, insufficient quality and quantity of studies investigating RTS outcomes for QT autografts underscores the unreliability of the current literature and need for high-quality, prospective studies.

Level of evidence: Level III, systematic review of Level II and III studies.

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
9.30
自引率
17.00%
发文量
555
审稿时长
58 days
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.
×
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