摘要
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Doctors often use autoal ergic hamstring double-bundle and single-bundle for the reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament, but there is a controversy on which method is better. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical outcome of double-bundle versus single-bundle autoal ergic hamstring for the reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament. METHODS: Randomized control ed trials about comparing double-bundle with single-bundle autoal ergic hamstring for the reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament were col ected from PubMed database, Cochrane library, Springerlink database, CNKI database and CBM database. The Jadad’s scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the randomized control ed trials and Cochrane col aboration’s RevMan 5.0 software was used to perform the Meta analysis. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Fifteen randomized control ed trials total y 1 008 patients met the inclusion criteria and included. Meta-analysis results showed that there was statistical difference of postoperative KT-1000 or KT-2000 arthrometer mesurement between double-bundle and single-bundle reconstruction [weighted mean difference (WMD)=-0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) (-0.74, -0.28), P < 0.000 1], there was significant difference of the negative pivot-shift testing [relative risk (RR)=1.27,95%CI(1.11,1.45), P=0.000 3], as wel as the postoperative Lysholm scores [WMD=-2.10, 95%CI(-3.65, -0.55), P=0.008]. But there was no statistical differences of IKDC final score [RR=1.04,95%CI(0.99, 1.06), P=0.10]. The double-bundle autoal ergic hamstring is superior to single-bundle for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction on recovering stability of knee joint, but they are similar in recovering the functions of knee joint.关键词
骨关节植入物/骨关节植入物循证医学/膝关节/前交叉韧带/自体腘绳肌腱/双束/单束/Meta 分析Key words
bone and joint implants/evidence-based medicine of bone and joint implants/knee joint/anterior cruciate ligament/autogenous hamstring tendon/dual beam/single beam/Meta-analysis分类
医药卫生
