Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30686570›Full record

SynthesisActa orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica2019

Long term results after double and single bundle ACL reconstruction: Is there any difference? A meta - analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Zhenyue Dong, Yingzhen Niu, Jianchao Qi, Yifan Song, Fei Wang

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Zhenyue DongDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, 050051, Hebei, China. Electronic address: dongzhenyue@yeah.net.
Yingzhen NiuDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, 050051, Hebei, China. Electronic address: missniu99@163.com.
Jianchao QiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, 050051, Hebei, China. Electronic address: 763467725@qq.com.
Yifan SongDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, 050051, Hebei, China. Electronic address: 812547699@qq.com.
Fei WangDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Third Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, 050051, Hebei, China. Electronic address: doctorwf@yeah.net.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe double-bundle (DB) techniques are considered to yield better stability of the knee compared with single-bundle (SB) for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, most studies followed up patients in short to middle-term within 5 years, and the longer-term efficacy of SB and DB ACL reconstruction is still beyond consensus. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the longer-term efficacy between double-bundle (DB) and single-bundle (SB) techniques.

methodsPubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant articles published up to November, 2017 with an English language restriction. The searches were limited to human subjects and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In addition, the reference lists of identified articles were checked manually to avoid missing other potentially eligible studies. This process was performed iteratively until no additional articles could be included. The quality of the included studies was assessed using The Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. All statistical analyses were performed with Review Manager soft-ware.

resultsA total of five RCTs involving 294 patients were included finally. No studies were excluded due to insufficient data or low quality. The pooled results showed no statistically significant difference between SB and double bundle DB reconstructions for Lysholm, IKDC, pivot shift, KT scores, and the development of osteoarthritis at a minimum of 5 years. No significant heterogeneity was found across all outcomes.

conclusionThe best available evidence demonstrated that SB and DB techniques could yield similar efficacy for ACL reconstruction. And no superiority was founded in DB ACL reconstruction with a minimal 5-year follow-up. Given that, the relatively simple and proven techniques of SB ACL reconstruction may be preferable for orthopedic surgeons. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, Therapeutic Study.

Indexed as

Anterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionAnterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeAnterior cruciate ligamentDouble bundleReconstructionSingle bundle

Identifiers

PMID30686570
PMCPMC6506993

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.