Literature DB >> 32180364

Autografts vs Synthetics for Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Jian Sun1, Xiao-Chun Wei1, Lu Li1, Xiao-Ming Cao1, Kai Li1, Li Guo1, Jian-Gong Lu2, Zhi-Qing Duan1, Chuan Xiang1, Lei Wei3.   

Abstract

To describe the outcomes of autografts and synthetics in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction with respect to instrumented laxity measurements, patient-reported outcome scores, complications, and graft failure risk. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE for published randomized controlled trials (RCT) and case controlled trials (CCTs) to compare the outcomes of the autografts versus synthetics after cruciate ligament reconstruction. Data analyses were performed using Cochrane Collaboration RevMan 5.0. Nine studies were identified from the literature review. Of these studies, three studies compared the results of bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) and ligament augmentation and reconstruction system (LARS), while six studies compared the results of four-strand hamstring tendon graft (4SHG) and LARS. The comparative study showed no difference in Lysholm score and failure risk between autografts and synthetics. The combined results of the meta-analysis indicated that there was a significantly lower rate of side-to-side difference > 3 mm (Odds Ratio [OR] 2.46, 95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.44-4.22, P = 0.001), overall IKDC (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.19-0.83, P = 0.01), complications (OR 2.54, 95% CI 1.26-5.14, P = 0.009), and Tegner score (OR -0.31, 95% CI -0.52-0.10, P = 0.004) in the synthetics group than in the autografts group. This systematic review comparing long-term outcomes after cruciate ligament reconstruction with either autograft or synthetics suggests no significant differences in failure risk. Autografts were inferior to synthetics with respect to restoring knee joint stability and patient-reported outcome scores, and were also associated with more postoperative complications.
© 2020 The Authors. Orthopaedic Surgery published by Chinese Orthopaedic Association and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cruciate ligament; LARS; Meta-analysis; Systematic review

Year:  2020        PMID: 32180364     DOI: 10.1111/os.12662

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Orthop Surg        ISSN: 1757-7853            Impact factor:   2.071


  6 in total

Review 1.  [Research progress of internal tension relieving technique in assisting anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction].

Authors:  Fei Xu; Yanling Li; Guoliang Wang; Dejian Liu
Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2021-12-15

2.  Clinical results after arthroscopic reconstruction of the posterolateral corner of the knee: A prospective randomized trial comparing two different surgical techniques.

Authors:  Sebastian Weiss; Matthias Krause; Karl-Heinz Frosch
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2022-03-27       Impact factor: 3.067

Review 3.  Current strategies for enhancement of the bioactivity of artificial ligaments: A mini-review.

Authors:  Shenglin Li; Shuhan Wang; Wenliang Liu; Chao Zhang; Jian Song
Journal:  J Orthop Translat       Date:  2022-10-12       Impact factor: 4.889

4.  Optimal Surgical Treatment Method for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture: Results from a Network Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Yudi Wu; Yajia Li; Jia Guo; Qianxiang Li; Jianhuang Wu; Ziqin Cao; Yulin Song
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2022-08-23

5.  Quantification and comparison of tenocyte distribution and collagen content in the commonly used autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Sabiha Latiff; Oladiran Ibukunolu Olateju
Journal:  Anat Cell Biol       Date:  2022-06-07

Review 6.  Patellar tendon versus artificial grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  DingYuan Fan; Jia Ma; Lei Zhang
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2021-08-04       Impact factor: 2.359

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.