Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair Augmented With Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization Is Equivalent to Hamstring Autograft Reconstruction at Short- and Mid-Term Follow-Up: A Systematic Review

To compare clinical outcomes, knee stability and complications, failure, and revision rates after anterior cruciate ligament repair (ACLr) with dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) versus anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with hamstring autograft for primary ACL ruptures at sh...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Arthroscopy 2024-07, Vol.40 (7), p.2121-2131.e1
Hauptverfasser: Ambrosio, Luca, Franco, Domenico, Vadalà, Gianluca, Russo, Fabrizio, Papalia, Rocco
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 2131.e1
container_issue 7
container_start_page 2121
container_title Arthroscopy
container_volume 40
creator Ambrosio, Luca
Franco, Domenico
Vadalà, Gianluca
Russo, Fabrizio
Papalia, Rocco
description To compare clinical outcomes, knee stability and complications, failure, and revision rates after anterior cruciate ligament repair (ACLr) with dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) versus anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with hamstring autograft for primary ACL ruptures at short and mid-term follow-up. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses–compliant systematic review of PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus was performed. Studies that evaluated patients undergoing ACLr with DIS or ACLR with hamstring autograft were considered for inclusion. Studies were excluded if patients were affected by concomitant meniscal, ligamentous, or chondral injuries needing surgical treatment, because of their potential confounding effect on postoperative outcomes. The Risk of Bias-2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. The quality of available evidence was rated according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation recommendations. The study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (ID: CRD42023394558). Five randomized controlled trials comparing the outcomes of ACLr with DIS versus ACLR with hamstring autograft met the inclusion criteria. No major differences in terms of patient-reported outcomes (International Knee Documentation Committee subjective form, Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, visual analog scale satisfaction) or rates of complications, revisions, and failures were found in included studies at all time points. Repair showed greater International Knee Documentation Committee subjective form scores at 5 years in one study, whereas ACLR displayed significantly increased knee stability at 6 months and 5 years in 2 different studies, although the clinical relevance of these differences is doubtful. The results of this study suggest that ACLr with DIS is not inferior to ACLR with hamstring autograft in terms of rates of clinical outcomes, knee stability, risk of failure, complications, and revision surgery. Therefore, ACLr with DIS may be a viable alternative to ACLR with hamstring autograft in selected patients. Level I, systematic review of Level I studies.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.arthro.2023.12.011
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2933464258</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0749806323010150</els_id><sourcerecordid>2933464258</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c362t-ed9dd11b65eab988d07590df60d7394578816528f01e5d668c177fd763b1137e3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc2O0zAUhSMEYsrAGyDkJZsE_ySOwwKpKvNTqQiJzoil5do3rask7tjOjMrb8Wbj0MKS1ZWvvnOOrk-WvSe4IJjwT_tC-bjzrqCYsoLQAhPyIpuRivKcUUZeZjNcl00uMGcX2ZsQ9hhjxgR7nV0wUZKal3iW_Z4PEbx1Hi38qK2KgFZ2q3oYIvoBB2U9mo_b6QkG_bRxh74eB9VbjZZD9Ko7s8of0Tqqje3sLxWtG9AyoKuH0T6qbrKKDt2qPkRvh20yjG7rVTslaDek7aj_aFRE653zMUdqMOibNfkd-B5du65zT_n94TOao_UxROhThk7qRwtPb7NXreoCvDvPy-z--upucZuvvt8sF_NVrhmnMQfTGEPIhlegNo0QBtdVg03LsalZU1a1EIRXVLSYQGU4F5rUdWtqzjaEsBrYZfbx5Hvw7mGEEGVvg4auUwO4MUjaMFbyklYioeUJ1d6F4KGVB2_79EeSYDmVJ_fyVJ6cypOEylRekn04J4ybHsw_0d-2EvDlBEC6M93uZdAWBg3GetBRGmf_n_AMgFiwdQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2933464258</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair Augmented With Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization Is Equivalent to Hamstring Autograft Reconstruction at Short- and Mid-Term Follow-Up: A Systematic Review</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Ambrosio, Luca ; Franco, Domenico ; Vadalà, Gianluca ; Russo, Fabrizio ; Papalia, Rocco</creator><creatorcontrib>Ambrosio, Luca ; Franco, Domenico ; Vadalà, Gianluca ; Russo, Fabrizio ; Papalia, Rocco</creatorcontrib><description>To compare clinical outcomes, knee stability and complications, failure, and revision rates after anterior cruciate ligament repair (ACLr) with dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) versus anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with hamstring autograft for primary ACL ruptures at short and mid-term follow-up. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses–compliant systematic review of PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus was performed. Studies that evaluated patients undergoing ACLr with DIS or ACLR with hamstring autograft were considered for inclusion. Studies were excluded if patients were affected by concomitant meniscal, ligamentous, or chondral injuries needing surgical treatment, because of their potential confounding effect on postoperative outcomes. The Risk of Bias-2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. The quality of available evidence was rated according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation recommendations. The study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (ID: CRD42023394558). Five randomized controlled trials comparing the outcomes of ACLr with DIS versus ACLR with hamstring autograft met the inclusion criteria. No major differences in terms of patient-reported outcomes (International Knee Documentation Committee subjective form, Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, visual analog scale satisfaction) or rates of complications, revisions, and failures were found in included studies at all time points. Repair showed greater International Knee Documentation Committee subjective form scores at 5 years in one study, whereas ACLR displayed significantly increased knee stability at 6 months and 5 years in 2 different studies, although the clinical relevance of these differences is doubtful. The results of this study suggest that ACLr with DIS is not inferior to ACLR with hamstring autograft in terms of rates of clinical outcomes, knee stability, risk of failure, complications, and revision surgery. Therefore, ACLr with DIS may be a viable alternative to ACLR with hamstring autograft in selected patients. Level I, systematic review of Level I studies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0749-8063</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1526-3231</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1526-3231</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2023.12.011</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38417640</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><ispartof>Arthroscopy, 2024-07, Vol.40 (7), p.2121-2131.e1</ispartof><rights>2024 Arthroscopy Association of North America</rights><rights>Copyright © 2024 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c362t-ed9dd11b65eab988d07590df60d7394578816528f01e5d668c177fd763b1137e3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c362t-ed9dd11b65eab988d07590df60d7394578816528f01e5d668c177fd763b1137e3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8566-8952</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749806323010150$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38417640$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ambrosio, Luca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Franco, Domenico</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vadalà, Gianluca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Russo, Fabrizio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Papalia, Rocco</creatorcontrib><title>Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair Augmented With Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization Is Equivalent to Hamstring Autograft Reconstruction at Short- and Mid-Term Follow-Up: A Systematic Review</title><title>Arthroscopy</title><addtitle>Arthroscopy</addtitle><description>To compare clinical outcomes, knee stability and complications, failure, and revision rates after anterior cruciate ligament repair (ACLr) with dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) versus anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with hamstring autograft for primary ACL ruptures at short and mid-term follow-up. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses–compliant systematic review of PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus was performed. Studies that evaluated patients undergoing ACLr with DIS or ACLR with hamstring autograft were considered for inclusion. Studies were excluded if patients were affected by concomitant meniscal, ligamentous, or chondral injuries needing surgical treatment, because of their potential confounding effect on postoperative outcomes. The Risk of Bias-2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. The quality of available evidence was rated according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation recommendations. The study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (ID: CRD42023394558). Five randomized controlled trials comparing the outcomes of ACLr with DIS versus ACLR with hamstring autograft met the inclusion criteria. No major differences in terms of patient-reported outcomes (International Knee Documentation Committee subjective form, Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, visual analog scale satisfaction) or rates of complications, revisions, and failures were found in included studies at all time points. Repair showed greater International Knee Documentation Committee subjective form scores at 5 years in one study, whereas ACLR displayed significantly increased knee stability at 6 months and 5 years in 2 different studies, although the clinical relevance of these differences is doubtful. The results of this study suggest that ACLr with DIS is not inferior to ACLR with hamstring autograft in terms of rates of clinical outcomes, knee stability, risk of failure, complications, and revision surgery. Therefore, ACLr with DIS may be a viable alternative to ACLR with hamstring autograft in selected patients. Level I, systematic review of Level I studies.</description><issn>0749-8063</issn><issn>1526-3231</issn><issn>1526-3231</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kc2O0zAUhSMEYsrAGyDkJZsE_ySOwwKpKvNTqQiJzoil5do3rask7tjOjMrb8Wbj0MKS1ZWvvnOOrk-WvSe4IJjwT_tC-bjzrqCYsoLQAhPyIpuRivKcUUZeZjNcl00uMGcX2ZsQ9hhjxgR7nV0wUZKal3iW_Z4PEbx1Hi38qK2KgFZ2q3oYIvoBB2U9mo_b6QkG_bRxh74eB9VbjZZD9Ko7s8of0Tqqje3sLxWtG9AyoKuH0T6qbrKKDt2qPkRvh20yjG7rVTslaDek7aj_aFRE653zMUdqMOibNfkd-B5du65zT_n94TOao_UxROhThk7qRwtPb7NXreoCvDvPy-z--upucZuvvt8sF_NVrhmnMQfTGEPIhlegNo0QBtdVg03LsalZU1a1EIRXVLSYQGU4F5rUdWtqzjaEsBrYZfbx5Hvw7mGEEGVvg4auUwO4MUjaMFbyklYioeUJ1d6F4KGVB2_79EeSYDmVJ_fyVJ6cypOEylRekn04J4ybHsw_0d-2EvDlBEC6M93uZdAWBg3GetBRGmf_n_AMgFiwdQ</recordid><startdate>20240701</startdate><enddate>20240701</enddate><creator>Ambrosio, Luca</creator><creator>Franco, Domenico</creator><creator>Vadalà, Gianluca</creator><creator>Russo, Fabrizio</creator><creator>Papalia, Rocco</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8566-8952</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240701</creationdate><title>Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair Augmented With Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization Is Equivalent to Hamstring Autograft Reconstruction at Short- and Mid-Term Follow-Up: A Systematic Review</title><author>Ambrosio, Luca ; Franco, Domenico ; Vadalà, Gianluca ; Russo, Fabrizio ; Papalia, Rocco</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c362t-ed9dd11b65eab988d07590df60d7394578816528f01e5d668c177fd763b1137e3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ambrosio, Luca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Franco, Domenico</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vadalà, Gianluca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Russo, Fabrizio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Papalia, Rocco</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Arthroscopy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ambrosio, Luca</au><au>Franco, Domenico</au><au>Vadalà, Gianluca</au><au>Russo, Fabrizio</au><au>Papalia, Rocco</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair Augmented With Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization Is Equivalent to Hamstring Autograft Reconstruction at Short- and Mid-Term Follow-Up: A Systematic Review</atitle><jtitle>Arthroscopy</jtitle><addtitle>Arthroscopy</addtitle><date>2024-07-01</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>40</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>2121</spage><epage>2131.e1</epage><pages>2121-2131.e1</pages><issn>0749-8063</issn><issn>1526-3231</issn><eissn>1526-3231</eissn><abstract>To compare clinical outcomes, knee stability and complications, failure, and revision rates after anterior cruciate ligament repair (ACLr) with dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) versus anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with hamstring autograft for primary ACL ruptures at short and mid-term follow-up. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses–compliant systematic review of PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus was performed. Studies that evaluated patients undergoing ACLr with DIS or ACLR with hamstring autograft were considered for inclusion. Studies were excluded if patients were affected by concomitant meniscal, ligamentous, or chondral injuries needing surgical treatment, because of their potential confounding effect on postoperative outcomes. The Risk of Bias-2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. The quality of available evidence was rated according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation recommendations. The study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (ID: CRD42023394558). Five randomized controlled trials comparing the outcomes of ACLr with DIS versus ACLR with hamstring autograft met the inclusion criteria. No major differences in terms of patient-reported outcomes (International Knee Documentation Committee subjective form, Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, visual analog scale satisfaction) or rates of complications, revisions, and failures were found in included studies at all time points. Repair showed greater International Knee Documentation Committee subjective form scores at 5 years in one study, whereas ACLR displayed significantly increased knee stability at 6 months and 5 years in 2 different studies, although the clinical relevance of these differences is doubtful. The results of this study suggest that ACLr with DIS is not inferior to ACLR with hamstring autograft in terms of rates of clinical outcomes, knee stability, risk of failure, complications, and revision surgery. Therefore, ACLr with DIS may be a viable alternative to ACLR with hamstring autograft in selected patients. Level I, systematic review of Level I studies.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>38417640</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.arthro.2023.12.011</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8566-8952</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0749-8063
ispartof Arthroscopy, 2024-07, Vol.40 (7), p.2121-2131.e1
issn 0749-8063
1526-3231
1526-3231
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2933464258
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
title Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair Augmented With Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization Is Equivalent to Hamstring Autograft Reconstruction at Short- and Mid-Term Follow-Up: A Systematic Review
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T19%3A17%3A48IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Anterior%20Cruciate%20Ligament%20Repair%20Augmented%20With%20Dynamic%20Intraligamentary%20Stabilization%20Is%20Equivalent%20to%20Hamstring%20Autograft%20Reconstruction%20at%20Short-%20and%20Mid-Term%20Follow-Up:%20A%20Systematic%20Review&rft.jtitle=Arthroscopy&rft.au=Ambrosio,%20Luca&rft.date=2024-07-01&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=2121&rft.epage=2131.e1&rft.pages=2121-2131.e1&rft.issn=0749-8063&rft.eissn=1526-3231&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.arthro.2023.12.011&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2933464258%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2933464258&rft_id=info:pmid/38417640&rft_els_id=S0749806323010150&rfr_iscdi=true