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.

Published
December 29, 2022
Journal
Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association
PICOID
2dbc1296
DOI
Citations
8
Keywords
Copyright
Copyright © 2022 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Patients/Population/Participants

patients

Intervention

femoral drilling techniques

Comparison

standard transtibial (sTT), anteromedial portal (AMP), outside-in (OI), or modified transtibial (mTT) technique

Outcome

side-to-side difference, Lachman test, pivot-shift test, International Knee Documentation Committee subjective and objective scores, Lysholm score, Tegner score

Abstract

P
I
C
O

To compare the postoperative outcomes of 4 different femoral drilling techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. 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 χ 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 (χ 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 II, meta-analysis of Level I and II studies.

Similar article map

CEO: Hwi-yeol YunCOO: Jung-woo ChaeCTO: Sangkeun Jung
Location: 204, W6, Chungnam National University, 99, Daehak-ro, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon, Republic of Korea
Tel: 042-821-7328E-mail: webmaster@lilac-co.kr
Copyright © 2024 by LiLac. All Rights Reserved.