Surgical treatment is better than non-surgical treatment for primary patellar dislocation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: At present, the best treatment for primary patellar dislocation (PPD) has not been unified. Moreover, meta-analyses comparing the non-surgical and surgical treatments of PPD are lacking. Thus, we aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of surgical or non-surgical treatment of PPD. METHODS: Randomized controlled studies of surgical and non-surgical treatments of PPD from 1966 to 2018 were retrieved from the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Wanfang Database, China Knowledge Network, Google Scholar, and Weipu Database. We screened for literature that met the inclusion criteria and extracted useful data for our meta-analysis. RESULTS: Nine studies, involving 492 patients, met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in this study. The recurrence rate of patellar dislocation in the surgical group was lower than that in the non-surgical group (P = 0.04]). Subgroup analysis according to the follow-up time showed that the Kujala score (P < 0.001) and lower recurrence rate of dislocation (P = 0.05) than the non-surgical group in the short term. Subgroup analysis according to surgical year showed that the surgical group get higher Kujala score (P < 0.001) and lower recurrence rate of dislocation (P = 0.01) than the non-surgical group in recent years. CONCLUSION: Surgical treatment can provide better clinical results in a short period of time, and patients may achieve good results within 10 years owing to the advances in surgical techniques and instruments. Thus, we recommend surgical treatment as the preferred treatment for primary patellar dislocation.

Single-bundle versus double-bundle autologous anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials at 5-year minimum follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Both single-bundle (SB) and double-bundle (DB) techniques were widely used in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction recently. Nevertheless, up to now, no consensus has been reached on whether the DB technique was superior to the SB technique. Moreover, follow-up of the included studies in the published meta-analyses is mostly short term. Our study aims to compare the mid- to long-term outcome of SB and DB ACL reconstruction concerning knee stability, clinical function, graft failure rate, and osteoarthritis (OA) changes. METHODS: This study followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to October 2017. The study included only a randomized controlled trial (RCT) that compared SB and DB ACL reconstruction and that had a minimum of 5-year follow-up. The Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias for all included studies. Stata/SE 12.0 was used to perform a meta-analysis of the clinical outcome. RESULTS: Five RCTs were included, with a total of 294 patients: 150 patients and 144 patients in the DB group and the SB group, respectively. Assessing knee stability, there was no statistical difference in side-to-side difference and negative rate of the pivot-shift test. Considering functional outcome, no significant difference was found in proportion with International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) grade A, IKDC score, Lysholm scores, and Tegner scores. As for graft failure rate and OA changes, no significant difference was found between the DB group and the SB group. CONCLUSION: The DB technique was not superior to the SB technique in autologous ACL reconstruction regarding knee stability, clinical function, graft failure rate, and OA changes with a mid- to long-term follow-up.