Anteromedial Portal Technique, but Not Outside-in Technique, Is Superior to Standard Transtibial Technique in Knee Stability and Functional Recovery After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Network Meta-analysis.
Arthroscopy
; 39(6): 1515-1525, 2023 06.
Article
em En
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-36577618
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE:
To compare the postoperative outcomes of 4 different femoral drilling techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.METHODS:
Three databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing any 2 or more of the following femoral drilling techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction standard transtibial (sTT), anteromedial portal (AMP), outside-in (OI), or modified transtibial (mTT) technique. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to assess postoperative stability and functional recovery in terms of the side-to-side difference (measured by arthrometry), Lachman test, pivot-shift test, International Knee Documentation Committee subjective and objective scores, Lysholm score, and Tegner score. The Fisher exact probability test and χ2 test were used to compare the incidences of infection and graft rupture, respectively.RESULTS:
We included 20 randomized controlled trials involving 1,515 patients. The AMP technique showed a lower side-to-side difference (standardized mean difference, -0.33; 95% credible interval [CrI], -0.53 to -0.12), higher negative rate on the pivot-shift test (odds ratio, 2.19; 95% CrI, 1.38 to 3.44), and higher International Knee Documentation Committee objective score (odds ratio, 3.13; 95% CrI, 1.42 to 7.82) than the sTT technique. However, knee stability and functional outcomes did not differ significantly between the OI and sTT techniques. Safety outcomes of the mTT technique were unavailable. The incidence of graft rupture was 5.20% for the OI technique, 2.27% for the AMP technique, and 1.51% for the sTT technique. The OI technique had a significantly higher incidence of graft rupture than the sTT technique (χ2 = 4.421, P = .035). No significant difference in the incidence of infection was found between the sTT, AMP, and OI techniques (P = .281).CONCLUSIONS:
The AMP technique, but not the OI technique, was superior to the sTT technique in knee stability and functional recovery. The OI technique had a higher incidence of graft rupture than the sTT technique. There was no significant difference between the AMP and OI techniques or between the mTT technique and any other femoral drilling technique. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level II, meta-analysis of Level I and II studies.
Texto completo:
1
Coleções:
01-internacional
Base de dados:
MEDLINE
Assunto principal:
Reconstrução do Ligamento Cruzado Anterior
/
Lesões do Ligamento Cruzado Anterior
Tipo de estudo:
Clinical_trials
/
Systematic_reviews
Limite:
Humans
Idioma:
En
Ano de publicação:
2023
Tipo de documento:
Article