Dataset Information

Level of evidence in wrist ligament repair and reconstruction research: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: There have been numerous studies on surgery of wrist ligament injuries, but a quick assessment reveals few with a high level of evidence (LoE). The primary aim of this study was to categorize the study type and LoE of studies on repair and reconstruction of the scapholunate ligament, the lunotriquetral ligament and the triangular fibrocartilage complex by applying the LoE rating system proposed by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. The secondary aims were to evaluate the journal- and geographic- distribution of the included studies.An electronic literature search of articles published 1985-2016, in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library was carried out in May 2016 and updated in April 2017. Therapeutic studies written in English were included. The PRISMA checklist guided the extraction and reporting of data.A total of 1889 studies were analyzed, of which 362 were included. Three journals represented 40% of the included studies and American authors dominated.Most studies (97%) had low LoE (IV-V). No studies of LoE I-II were found. There is insufficient evidence to recommend one technique over the other in terms of wrist ligament surgery in clinical practice. There is an immense lack of comparison studies with high level of evidence in the area of wrist ligament repair and reconstruction.

SUBMITTER: Andersson JK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5992116 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Level of evidence in wrist ligament repair and reconstruction research: a systematic review.

Andersson Jonny K JK Rööser Bo B Karlsson Jón J

Journal of experimental orthopaedics 20180607 1

There have been numerous studies on surgery of wrist ligament injuries, but a quick assessment reveals few with a high level of evidence (LoE). The primary aim of this study was to categorize the study type and LoE of studies on repair and reconstruction of the scapholunate ligament, the lunotriquetral ligament and the triangular fibrocartilage complex by applying the LoE rating system proposed by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. The secondary aims were to evaluate the journal- and ...[more]

PMID: 29881999

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRevision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is believed to have an inferior outcome compared with primary ACL reconstruction. The available literature on the outcome of revision ACL reconstruction is sparse compared with that for primary reconstruction. The purpose of this systematic review was to test the hypothesis that the outcome of revision ACL reconstruction compares unfavorably with the historical outcome of primary ACL reconstruction.MethodsA systematic review of studies evaluating the outcome of revision ACL reconstructions with a minimum of two years of follow-up was performed. Pooled data were collected when appropriate and a mixed-effect-model meta-analysis was performed for important outcome measures that were reported in several studies (objective graft failure, Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] subjective score, and IKDC objective score). Objective failure was defined as repeat revision, a side-to-side difference of >5 mm measured with use of a KT1000 arthrometer, or a pivot-shift grade of 2+ or 3+.ResultsTwenty-one studies were included, and 863 of the 1004 patients in these studies had a minimum of two years of follow-up and were analyzed. The pooled mean age of the patients at the time of the revision procedure was 30.6 years, and 66% were male. Objective failure occurred in 13.7% ± 2.7% of the patients (95% confidence interval, 8.0% to 19.4%). The mean Lysholm score in 491 patients was 82.1 ± 3.3 (95% confidence interval, 74.6 to 89.5) according to a mixed-model meta-analysis. The mean IKDC subjective score in 202 patients was 74.8 ± 4.4 (95% confidence interval, 62.5 to 87.0).ConclusionsRevision ACL reconstruction resulted in a worse outcome compared with primary ACL reconstruction. Patient-reported outcome scores were inferior to previously published results of primary ACL reconstruction, but these differences may not be clinically important. A dramatically elevated failure rate was noted after revision ACL reconstruction; this rate was nearly three to four times the failure rate in prospective series of primary ACL reconstructions.

Project description:BackgroundInjury to the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) of the knee is common. Following complete rupture of the ACL, insufficient re-vascularization of the ligament prevents it from healing completely, creating a need for reconstruction. A variety of grafts are available for use in ACL reconstruction surgery, including synthetic grafts. Over the last two decades new types of synthetic ligaments have been developed. One of these synthetic ligaments, the Ligament Advanced Reinforcement System (LARS), has recently gained popularity.The aim of this systematic review was to assess the current best available evidence for the effectiveness of the LARS as a surgical option for symptomatic, anterior cruciate ligament rupture in terms of graft stability, rehabilitation time and return to pre-injury function.MethodThis systematic review included studies using subjects with symptomatic, ACL ruptures undergoing LARS reconstruction. A range of electronic databases were searched in May 2010. The methodological quality of studies was appraised with a modified version of the Law critical appraisal tool. Data relating to study characteristics, surgical times, complication rates, outcomes related to knee stability, quality of life, function, and return to sport as well as details of rehabilitation programs and timeframes were collected.ResultsThis review identified four studies of various designs, of a moderate methodological quality. Only one case of knee synovitis was reported. Patient satisfaction with LARS was high. Graft stability outcomes were found to be inconsistent both at post operative and at follow up periods. The time frames of rehabilitation periods were poorly reported and at times omitted. Return to pre-injury function and activity was often discussed but not reported in results.ConclusionsThere is an emerging body of evidence for LARS with comparable complication rates to traditional surgical techniques, and high patient satisfaction scores. However, this systematic review has highlighted several important gaps in the existing literature that require future prospective investigation. The findings of this review were equivocal with regards to other measures such as graft stability and long term functional outcomes. While the importance of rehabilitation following LARS is well recognised, there is limited evidence to guide rehabilitation protocols.

Project description:AimsCurrently, it is advised to perform meniscal repair instead of meniscectomy in certain cases of primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). However, the level of evidence is low. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the effectiveness of meniscectomy and meniscus repair in addition to ACLR.MethodsThe systematic search was conducted in three online databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane) from inception until October 2021 for the literature on primary ACLR and concomitant meniscal surgery. Eligible studies compared the following outcomes between meniscal repair and meniscectomy groups: the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, and KT-arthrometer examinations. Lastly, we calculated pooled mean differences (MDs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) from the change between pre- and post-intervention values.ResultsOf 10,565 studies, 22 met the inclusion criteria, with a follow-up between 6 and 43 months. We found no difference when comparing the KOOS subscale changes-only in the KOOS pain subscale (MD = -1.6; CI: -2.48, -0.72). However, these results were not clinically significant. We analyzed the lateral and media meniscal injuries separately and concluded the same results regarding KOOS changes. We found no significant differences in the Lysholm score change (MD = -2.61; CI: -5.51, 0.29), changes in IKDC score (MD = 1.08; CI: -4.05, 6.21) or the change for the KT-arthrometer side-to-side difference (MD = -0.50; CI: -1.06, 0.06).ConclusionBased on our result, we did not find a clinically significant difference between meniscus repair and meniscectomy during primary ACLR regarding patient-reported outcomes in a short-term follow-up.Translational potentialOur research supports the prompt integration of findings into clinical practice for treating meniscus injuries during ACL reconstruction. We recommend considering both meniscus repair and meniscectomy, as the available data indicate their effectiveness. Further studies are necessary to assess the long-term impacts, particularly on osteoarthritis, and to identify patient subgroups that may benefit most from each technique.

Project description:BackgroundThe available literature referring to the return to play (RTP) and performance after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) has already been comprehensively summarized in team sports such as basketball or American Football. Therefore, in this sense, it is necessary to synthesize evidence relating to the mentioned parameters in soccer players who underwent ACLR.ObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review was to examine RTP and the performance of soccer players after ACLR.MethodsThree electronic databases, Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed, have been comprehensively searched to identify relevant articles. The following inclusion criteria were applied: (1) the sample of respondents consisted of soccer players irrespective of their age, sex, or level of competition; (2) athletes experienced anterior cruciate ligament injury and underwent ACLR; (3) outcomes estimated referred to the RTP, RTP at the preinjury level of competition, RTP time, performance, and career duration of soccer players; (4) studies were written in the English language. The methodological quality of the research was evaluated using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS).ResultsDatabases searched yielded a total of 694 studies, of which 17 fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis. These included 3657 soccer players, 2845 males and 812 females, who underwent ACLR and most commonly competed at the elite, national, amateur, and recreational levels. The results obtained indicated that 72% of soccer players successfully RTP and 53% RTP at the preinjury level of participation after ACLR. In addition, recent evidence provided in this literature review demonstrated that mean RTP time was 264 days or 8.7 months. Moreover, the majority of the studies unambiguously suggested that performance related to statistical aspects noticeably deteriorated compared with both the preinjury period and noninjured athletes. The mean career length of soccer players following ACL surgery was approximately between 4 and 5 years.ConclusionAlthough a high percentage of athletes RTP after a relatively short period of absence from the sports field compared with other sports closely related to soccer, ACLR negatively impacts soccer players' performance and career duration.

Project description:BackgroundTransportal (TP) and all-inside techniques (AIT) are the most commonly used anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction procedures in current clinical practice. However, there is an ongoing debate over which procedure is superior. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes and complications of these two techniques to propose recommendations for future application. Our primary hypothesis was that AIT is a superior ACLR technique compared to TP.MethodsA systematic literature review, using PRISMA guidelines, was conducted using PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, and EMBASE, up to February 2021 to identify studies focusing on AIT and TP techniques of ACL reconstruction. We excluded animal experiments, cadaveric studies, retrospective studies, case reports, technical notes, and studies without quantitative data. Patients' characteristics, surgical technical features, along with postoperative follow-up and complications were extracted and reported accordingly. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS).ResultsA total of 44 studies were selected for this review, of which four were comparative studies. A total of 923 patients underwent AIT and 1678 patients underwent the TP technique for ACLR. A single semitendinosus graft was commonly used in the AIT compard to combined semitendinosus and gracilis graft in the TP group. The postoperative increase in International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lysholm, KT-1000, and Short Form-12 (physical and mental) scores were similar in the AIT group and the TP group. Contrastingly, the VAS pain score was significantly lower in the AIT group compared to the TP group. Furthermore, the pooled complication rates from all studies were similar between the two groups (AIT: 54 patients, 8.26% vs. PT: 55 patients, 6.62%). However, the four studies that prospectively compared AIT and TP techniques showed lesser complications in the AIT group than the TP group.ConclusionSince the future trend in orthopedic surgery is toward less invasive and patients' satisfaction with good outcomes, AIT is a good alternative method considering preserving bony tissue and gracilis tendon with less post-operative pain, along with more knee flexor strength and equal outcomes compared to conventional ACL reconstruction surgery. Level of Evidence II.

Project description:BackgroundAn autograft has traditionally been the gold standard for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), but the use of allograft tissue has increased in recent years. While numerous studies have demonstrated that irradiated allografts are associated with increased failure rates, some report excellent results after ACLR with nonirradiated allografts. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine whether the use of nonirradiated allograft tissue is associated with poorer outcomes when compared with autografts.HypothesisPatients undergoing ACLR with autografts versus nonirradiated allografts will demonstrate no significant differences in graft failure risk, laxity on postoperative physical examination, or differences in patient-oriented outcome scores.Study designSystematic review.MethodsA systematic review was performed to identify prospective or retrospective comparative studies (evidence level 1, 2, or 3) of autografts versus nonirradiated allografts for ACLR. Outcome data included graft failure based on clinical findings and instrumented laxity, postoperative laxity on physical examination, and patient-reported outcome scores. Studies were excluded if they did not specify whether the allograft had been irradiated. Quality assessment and data extraction were performed by 2 examiners.ResultsNine studies comparing autografts and nonirradiated allografts were included. Six of the 9 studies compared bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autografts with BPTB allografts. Two studies compared hamstring tendon autografts to hamstring tendon allografts, and 1 study compared hamstring tendon autografts to tibialis anterior allografts. The mean patient age in 7 of 9 studies ranged from 24.5 to 32 years, with 1 study including only patients older than 40 years and another not reporting patient age. The mean follow-up duration was 24 to 94 months. Six of 9 studies reported clinical graft failure rates, 8 of 9 reported postoperative instrumented laxity measurements, 7 of 9 reported postoperative physical examination findings, and all studies reported patient-reported outcome scores. This review demonstrated no statistically significant difference between autografts and nonirradiated allografts in any outcome measure.ConclusionNo significant differences were found in graft failure rate, postoperative laxity, or patient-reported outcome scores when comparing ACLR with autografts to nonirradiated allografts in this systematic review. These findings apply to patients in their late 20s and early 30s. Caution is advised when considering extrapolation of these findings to younger, more active cohorts.

Dataset Information

Level of evidence in wrist ligament repair and reconstruction research: a systematic review.

Publications

Level of evidence in wrist ligament repair and reconstruction research: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets