Michael Yunes1, John C. Richmond, Eric A. Engels, Leo A. Pinczewski. 1. Department of Orthopaedics and the Division of Clinical Care Research, Department of Medicine, New England Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.; and the North Sydney Orthopaedic and Sports Medicine Center, Sydney, Australia (L.A.P.).
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the outcome of ACL reconstuction using patellar tendon (PAT) to that when using hamstring tendons. Type of Study: Meta-analysis of controlled trials of patellar tendon versus hamstring tendons for ACL reconstruction. METHODS: Meta-analysis is a systematic method for statistical analyses that allows compilation of combined data from various independent studies. This allows one to assess the potential benefits of various treatments when conclusions based on individual studies are difficult to assess. We conducted a meta-analyses (M-A) using controlled trials (CTs) to determine if there are differences between the 2 methods. Although both surgical techniques have potential for good results, we hypothesized that there are differences in outcomes between these techniques. We included CTs that used standard evaluation techniques with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Outcomes evaluated included: return to preinjury level of activity, KT testing, Lachman scores, pivot shift scores, range of motion (ROM) loss in flexion and extension, complications, and failures. Relative risks for each outcome were calculated for each study and pooled across studies using a fixed effects method. RESULTS: Four studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Relative risks with 95% confidence intervals and P values were obtained for each of the outcomes listed above. The results show significant differences between PAT and semitendinosus and gracilis tendon (ST&G) reconstructions. PAT patients have a greater chance of attaining a statically stable knee (as measured by KT) and nearly a 20% greater chance of returning to preinjury activity levels. CONCLUSIONS: Although both techniques, as performed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, yielded good results, PAT reconstuction led to higher postoperative activity levels and greater static stability than hamstring reconstruction. This is statistically significant based on this meta-analysis.
PURPOSE: To compare the outcome of ACL reconstuction using patellar tendon (PAT) to that when using hamstring tendons. Type of Study: Meta-analysis of controlled trials of patellar tendon versus hamstring tendons for ACL reconstruction. METHODS: Meta-analysis is a systematic method for statistical analyses that allows compilation of combined data from various independent studies. This allows one to assess the potential benefits of various treatments when conclusions based on individual studies are difficult to assess. We conducted a meta-analyses (M-A) using controlled trials (CTs) to determine if there are differences between the 2 methods. Although both surgical techniques have potential for good results, we hypothesized that there are differences in outcomes between these techniques. We included CTs that used standard evaluation techniques with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Outcomes evaluated included: return to preinjury level of activity, KT testing, Lachman scores, pivot shift scores, range of motion (ROM) loss in flexion and extension, complications, and failures. Relative risks for each outcome were calculated for each study and pooled across studies using a fixed effects method. RESULTS: Four studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Relative risks with 95% confidence intervals and P values were obtained for each of the outcomes listed above. The results show significant differences between PAT and semitendinosus and gracilis tendon (ST&G) reconstructions. PAT patients have a greater chance of attaining a statically stable knee (as measured by KT) and nearly a 20% greater chance of returning to preinjury activity levels. CONCLUSIONS: Although both techniques, as performed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, yielded good results, PAT reconstuction led to higher postoperative activity levels and greater static stability than hamstring reconstruction. This is statistically significant based on this meta-analysis.
Authors: M Otani; M Nozaki; M Kobayashi; H Goto; K Tawada; Y Waguri-Nagaya; H Okamoto; H Iguchi; N Watanabe; T Otsuka Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2011-08-10 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Michael Svensson; Ninni Sernert; Lars Ejerhed; Jon Karlsson; Jüri T Kartus Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2005-11-16 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: M Jagodzinski; K Scheunemann; K Knobloch; K Albrecht; C Krettek; C Hurschler; J Zeichen Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2006-06-09 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: James S Starman; Corinne Vanbeek; Derek R Armfield; Amit Sahasrabudhe; Champ L Baker; James J Irrgang; Freddie H Fu Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2007-01-16 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Tim Rose; Thomas Engel; Joachim Bernhard; Pierre Hepp; Christoph Josten; Helmut Lill Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2003-09-26 Impact factor: 4.342