-
JBJS Reviews Apr 2024The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is the most commonly injured ligament in the knee. ACL reconstruction (ACLR) proves the standard for treating this injury. However,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is the most commonly injured ligament in the knee. ACL reconstruction (ACLR) proves the standard for treating this injury. However, graft choice and method of fixation remain a heavily debated topic. This study investigates the following: bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) vs. hamstring tendon (HT) autograft, single-bundle vs. double-bundle hamstring graft, and metal vs. bioabsorbable screws in ACLR.
METHODS
A systematic review was performed on PubMed and Google Scholar according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data were collected on patient demographics, complications, and functionality scores including International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm scores. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted with Review Manager. Outcome measurements were determined using forest plots with significant differences considered p < 0.05.
RESULTS
Twenty-five studies were included, accounting for 2,170 patients. No statistically significant difference was appreciated when comparing BPTB to hamstring autografts. Patients who received a double bundle HT autograft exhibited significantly superior outcomes in terms of revision (p = 0.05), failure (p = 0.002), normal pivot shift tests (p = 0.04), and normal IKDC (p = 0.008). When comparing screw types, bioabsorbable screws had a greater Lysholm score (p = 0.01) and lower failure rates for copolymer screws (p = 0.03).
CONCLUSION
Overall, the data collected suggested that BPTB and HT autografts display similar postoperative results. However, if an HT autograft is used, the data suggest a double-bundle graft improves both functionality and decreases the possible complications. Finally, bioabsorbable screws prove superior to metal screws when looking at both functionality and failure rates. Further research into the superior graft type is still needed.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Topics: Humans; Tendons; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction; Knee Joint; Anterior Cruciate Ligament; Patellar Ligament
PubMed: 38574182
DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.23.00222 -
BMJ Open Ophthalmology Apr 2024Pterygium is a common ocular surface disorder that requires surgical intervention for treatment. Conjunctival autografts are preferred over simple excision due to lower... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Modified sutureless and glue-free method versus conventional sutures for conjunctival autograft fixation in primary pterygium surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Pterygium is a common ocular surface disorder that requires surgical intervention for treatment. Conjunctival autografts are preferred over simple excision due to lower recurrence rates. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the modified sutureless glue-free (MSGF) method with conventional sutures (CS) for conjunctival autograft fixation in primary pterygium surgery.
METHODS
A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Google Scholar and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MSGF and CS conjunctival autografts. Outcome measures included operation time, recurrence and postoperative complications. Standardised mean difference (SMD) and risk ratio (RR) were used for continuous and dichotomous outcomes, respectively.
RESULTS
11 RCTs involving 833 participants were included. The analysis revealed that MSGF had a significantly shorter operation time compared with CS (SMD -3.704, 95% CI -5.122 to -2.287, p<0.001). CS was associated with a higher risk of foreign body sensation (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.74, p=0.01). MSGF was associated with a higher risk of graft dehiscence (RR 9.01, 95% CI 2.74 to 29.68, p=0.000) and graft retraction (RR 2.37, 95% CI 1.17 to 4.77, p=0.02). No significant differences were found in recurrence, graft haemorrhage, granuloma, Dellen and conjunctival oedema.
CONCLUSION
Using the MSGF technique in conjunctival autograft fixation for pterygium surgery reduces operation time by relying solely on the patient's blood for fixation. However, it increases the risk of graft dehiscence and retraction. However, CS is linked to a higher likelihood of experiencing foreign body sensations. Understanding the learning curve and surgeon familiarity with novel techniques is crucial for optimising patient care and surgical outcomes, while individualised decision-making is necessary considering the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Further research is warranted to minimise complications and optimise surgical outcomes.
Topics: Humans; Pterygium; Autografts; Fibrin Tissue Adhesive; Recurrence; Conjunctiva; Sutures; Foreign Bodies
PubMed: 38565231
DOI: 10.1136/bmjophth-2023-001621 -
The American Journal of Sports Medicine Mar 2024Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is one of the most frequently performed procedures in sports medicine, and undesirable outcomes still may range from...
BACKGROUND
Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is one of the most frequently performed procedures in sports medicine, and undesirable outcomes still may range from 3-18%. One technique that has been explored to improve outcomes is preservation of the ACL remnant tibial stump, as opposed to stump debridement, at the time of reconstruction.
PURPOSE
To review current high-level evidence and compare remnant-preserving anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) versus standard ACLR in terms of clinical outcomes and measures of knee stability.
HYPOTHESIS
ACLR with remnant preservation would result in improved clinical outcomes and knee stability measures.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2.
METHODS
A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing remnant-preserving ACLR with standard ACLR with a minimum level of evidence of 2 was performed. Extracted data were summarized as general information, surgical characteristics, postoperative clinical outcomes, knee stability, graft evaluation, tunnel assessment, and postoperative complications. When feasible, a meta-analysis was performed.
RESULTS
Seven RCTs and 5 cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. In total, 518 patients underwent remnant-preserving ACLR and 604 patients underwent standard ACLR. Ten studies performed the reconstruction with hamstring tendon (HT) autografts, 1 study with HT and bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts, and 1 study with HT and tibialis anterior allografts. On meta-analysis, remnant-preserving ACLR provided comparable outcomes with respect to International Knee Documentation Committee grades or Tegner scores. Even though there was a significant improvement in Lysholm scores (mean difference, -1.9; 95% CI, -2.89 to -0.91; = .0002) with the remnant-preserving technique, this did not exceed previously reported minimal clinically important difference values. Remnant-preserving ACLR demonstrated superior knee stability in terms of patients achieving negative pivot shift when compared with the control group (88.89% vs 79.92%; = .006). Although there was a significant improvement in the side-to-side difference in anterior tibial translation favoring remnant preservation ( = .004), the mean difference was 0.51 mm.
CONCLUSION
Remnant-preserving ACLR, primarily with HT autografts, results in comparable clinical outcome scores and significantly improved knee stability relative to standard ACLR without remnant preservation without increasing the complication rate. Further studies will help clarify if remnant-preserving ACLR also has benefits in terms of enhancing graft integration and maturation, improving proprioception, limiting tunnel enlargement, and reducing complications.
PubMed: 38551115
DOI: 10.1177/03635465231225984 -
Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and... Apr 2024To compare postoperative knee stability, functional outcomes, and complications after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using bone-patellar tendon-bone... (Review)
Review
Both Quadriceps and Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Autografts Improve Postoperative Stability and Functional Outcomes After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.
PURPOSE
To compare postoperative knee stability, functional outcomes, and complications after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) versus quadriceps tendon autograft.
METHODS
In accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for studies published in 2002 or later. Studies were included if they met the following criteria: randomized controlled trials that included patients who underwent ACL reconstruction with BPTB or quadriceps tendon autograft including all soft tissue and bone-quadriceps tendon and in which measures of postoperative stability and functional outcomes were reported. Studies that were not written in English and those that analyzed animals or cadavers, were not randomized controlled trials, or used other grafts (e.g., hamstring) were excluded.
RESULTS
The initial search identified 348 studies, 6 of which were included in this systematic review. Two of the six studies found no significant difference in performance outcomes or complications between quadriceps and BPTB autografts. One study found that patients receiving quadriceps autograft self-reported improved knee functional status compared with those receiving BPTB autograft. Another study found that quadriceps autograft resulted in a significantly reduced Quadriceps Index postoperatively compared with BPTB autograft (69.5 vs 82.8, = .01) but found no difference in postoperative quadriceps strength. An additional study found that the outcomes of quadriceps tendon and BPTB autografts were equivalent per the International Knee Documentation Committee scale, but anterior knee pain was less severe in patients with quadriceps tendon autograft. Furthermore, one study revealed the overall International Knee Documentation Committee score was reported as normal significantly more often in patients who underwent ACL reconstruction with BPTB autograft (85% vs 50%, < .001) and that donor-site morbidity was greater in patients with quadriceps autograft. No significant difference was found in complications requiring reoperation across studies.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients undergoing ACL reconstruction with either BPTB or quadriceps tendon autograft reported improved postoperative knee stability and functional outcomes. There is no significant difference in complications between quadriceps autograft use and BPTB autograft use.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Level III, systematic review of Level III retrospective studies.
PubMed: 38525287
DOI: 10.1016/j.asmr.2024.100919 -
Cureus Feb 2024Burn injuries, a major global health concern, result in an estimated 180,000 fatalities annually. Despite tremendous progress in treatment methods over the years, the... (Review)
Review
Burn injuries, a major global health concern, result in an estimated 180,000 fatalities annually. Despite tremendous progress in treatment methods over the years, the morbidity and mortality associated with burns remain significant. Autologous skin grafting, particularly split-thickness skin grafting (STSG), has been a cornerstone in burn reconstruction, and it has facilitated survival and functional recovery for total body surface area (TBSA) significantly. However, the requirement for primary closure at the donor site due to the constraints of full-thickness donor harvesting continues to pose challenges. The introduction of dermal regenerative templates (DRT) in the late 1970s marked a substantial step forward in tissue engineering, addressing the inadequacy of dermal replacement with STSGs. This systematic review aimed to compare the outcomes of different graft types - bioengineered, autografts, allografts, and xenografts - in burn reconstruction over the last 24 years. The review focused on the pros and cons of each graft type, offering clinical insights grounded in experience and evidence. The approach involved a systematic review of studies published in English from January 2000 to January 2024, covering randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, case-control studies, and case series. The participants comprised individuals of all ages who underwent burn reconstruction with skin grafts, specifically split-thickness grafts, full-thickness grafts, composite grafts, and epidermal grafts (autografts, allografts, and xenografts) and bioengineered grafts. The primary outcomes were functional and cosmetic results, patient satisfaction, graft survival, and complications. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials version 2 (RoB 2), the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for non-randomized studies, and the Canada Institute for Health Economics (IHE) quality appraisal tool for case series. Our initial search yielded a total of 1,995 articles, out of which 10 studies were selected for final analysis. Among the four clinical trials assessed, 75% showed a high risk of bias. The studies reviewed involved various graft types, with six studies (60%) concentrating on allografts, three (30%) on autografts, and one (10%) on bioengineered skin grafts. The outcomes were varied, underlining the intricate nature of burn wound management. Our evaluation revealed promising results for autologous-engineered skin substitutes and allografts but also highlighted methodological disparities among the studies included. The dominance of observational studies and the diversity of outcome measures present obstacles to direct comparisons. Future research should address these limitations, employing well-structured RCTs, standardized outcome measures, and exploring long-term outcomes and patient-specific factors. The rapidly evolving field of regenerative medicine offers great potential for novel grafting methods. This systematic review provides valuable insights into the diverse outcomes of burn reconstruction using different graft types. Autologous-engineered skin substitutes and allografts seem to hold significant promise, suggesting a possible shift in grafting techniques. However, methodological inconsistencies and the lack of high-quality evidence underscore the necessity for further research to fine-tune burn care approaches.
PubMed: 38496152
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.54277 -
The American Journal of Sports Medicine Mar 2024Medial collateral ligament (MCL) reconstruction (MCLR) is performed after failed nonoperative treatment or high-grade MCL injury with associated valgus instability.
BACKGROUND
Medial collateral ligament (MCL) reconstruction (MCLR) is performed after failed nonoperative treatment or high-grade MCL injury with associated valgus instability.
PURPOSE
To evaluate clinical outcomes after MCLR with autograft versus allograft.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic review, Level of evidence, 4.
METHODS
A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The authors conducted a search of the PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases to identify studies comparing outcomes of MCLR with autograft versus allograft. Studies were included if they evaluated clinical outcomes after MCLR using autograft and/or allograft. Any study that included concomitant knee ligament injury other than the anterior cruciate ligament injury was excluded. A quality assessment was performed using the modified Coleman Methodology Score.
RESULTS
The initial search identified 746 studies, 17 of which met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. The studies included 307 patients: 151 (49.2%) patients received autografts, and 156 (50.8%) received allografts. The most used autograft was the semitendinosus tendon (136 grafts; 90.1% of specified allografts), and the only allograft used was the Achilles tendon (110 grafts; 100% of specified autografts). The mean follow-up of the studies was 25.6 months. Postoperative pain (Lysholm scores) ranged from 82.9 to 94.8 in patients receiving autografts and 87.5 to 93 in patients receiving allografts. Postoperative range of motion was full in 8 of 15 (53.3%) patients receiving autografts compared with 82 of 93 (88.2%) patients receiving allografts. Five of the 151 (3.3%) patients who had MCLR with autografts had complications such as infection, instability, and prominent screws. Two of the 156 (1.3%) MCLRs with allografts developed complications of prominent screws and nonhealing incisions.
CONCLUSION
MCLR with either autografts or allografts leads to improved patient-reported, radiographic, and clinical outcomes. Patient-reported postoperative pain was similar in patients receiving either graft type. Other outcomes were difficult to compare between graft types because of nonstandardized reporting and a lack of pre- and postoperative measurements. Therefore, there is no evidence of significantly improved outcomes in the use of either autograft or allograft with MCLR.
PubMed: 38476106
DOI: 10.1177/03635465231225982 -
Bone Marrow Transplantation Jun 2024There is currently no consensus on the role of upfront autologous transplantation (ASCT) for patients with peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCL), especially in patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Role of upfront autologous transplant for peripheral T-cell lymphoma patients achieving a complete remission with first-line therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
There is currently no consensus on the role of upfront autologous transplantation (ASCT) for patients with peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCL), especially in patients achieving first complete remission (CR1) following chemotherapy, and data in the literature is conflicting. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to address this question. We searched key databases from January 2000 to February 2022. Six prospective and eleven retrospective studies were included among 2959 unique records. Median follow up in these studies ranged from 22 to 94 months. There was a trend towards benefit in PFS (HR = 0.80, 95% CI 0.62-1.05, p = 0.11) and OS (HR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.57-1.09, p = 0.15) in the ASCT compared to chemotherapy only group. Importantly, in transplant eligible patients in CR1, a significant benefit was demonstrated in both OS (HR = 0.59, 95% CI 0.36-0.95, p = 0.03) and PFS (HR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.47-0.81, p = 0.0004) in the ASCT group. Amongst the nodal PTCL subgroups, ASCT showed a significant PFS benefit for the AITL subgroup (HR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.20-0.94, p < 0.03) but not PTCL-NOS or ALK-ve ALCL subgroups. Our findings support upfront ASCT for transplant eligible PTCL patients achieving CR1 post chemotherapy. In particular, patients with AITL exhibited a significantly better PFS after upfront ASCT.
Topics: Lymphoma, T-Cell, Peripheral; Humans; Transplantation, Autologous; Remission Induction; Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation; Autografts
PubMed: 38443704
DOI: 10.1038/s41409-024-02254-x -
Global Spine Journal Feb 2024Systematic Review of the Literature.
Do Osteobiologics Augment Fusion in Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion Surgery Performed With Mechanical Interbody Devices (Polyether ether ketone, Carbon Fiber, Metal Cages) and is the Fusion Rate Comparable to that With Autograft? A Systematic Review.
STUDY DESIGN
Systematic Review of the Literature.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review describing fusion rates for anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) using autograft vs various interbody devices augmented with different osteobiologic materials.
METHODS
A systematic review limited to the English language was performed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane library using Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms. Studies that evaluated fusion after ACDF using autografts and osteobiologics combined with PEEK, carbon fibre, or metal cages were searched for. Articles in full text that met the criteria were included in the review. The main outcomes evaluated were the time taken to merge, the definition of the fusion assessment, and the modality of the fusion assessment. The risk of bias of each article was assessed by the MINORS score or ROB 2.0 depending on the randomisation process.
RESULTS
The total number of references reviewed was six hundred and eighty-two. After applying the inclusion criteria, 54 were selected for the retrieval of the full text. Eight studies were selected and included for final analysis in this study. Fusion rates were reported between 83.3% and 100% for autograft groups compared to 46.5% and 100% for various interbody device/osteobiological combinations. The overall quality of the evidence in all radiographic fusion studies was considered insufficient due to a serious risk of bias.
CONCLUSION
Mechanical interbody devices augmented with osteobiologics performed similarly to autografts in terms of reliability and efficacy. Their time to fusion and fusion rate were comparable to autografts at the end of the final follow-up.
PubMed: 38421330
DOI: 10.1177/21925682231188626 -
Global Spine Journal Feb 2024Systematic literature review To critically analyze the literature and describe the complications associated with the use of allograft in 1- or 2- level anterior...
Systematic literature review To critically analyze the literature and describe the complications associated with the use of allograft in 1- or 2- level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases was conducted for literature published between January 2000 and August 2020 reporting complications associated with the use of allograft in 1- or 2- level ACDF. From 584 potentially relevant citations, 21 met the inclusion criteria (4 randomized controlled trials (RCT), 4 prospective, and 13 retrospective studies). The patient number varied between 26 and 463 in comparative studies (RCT and non-RCT) and between 29 and 345 in non-comparative studies. Fusion rate was reported in 14 studies and ranged between 68.5-100%. The most frequently reported complication was post-operative dysphagia or dysphonia, with incidences ranging between .5% and 14.4%. Revision surgery was the second most reported complication (14 studies) and ranged between 0% and 10.3%. Wound-related complications were reported in 6 studies and ranged between 0% and 22.8%. The overall reporting of complications was low with very few comparative studies. Reported complications with allografts are within the range of other osteobiologics and autografts and in most cases may not attributable to the use of osteobiologics and may be complications of the procedure itself. Comparative studies with a more robust methodology analyzing complications with allograft and other osteobiologics are needed to inform current practice with strong recommendations.
PubMed: 38421325
DOI: 10.1177/21925682231173358 -
Arthroscopy : the Journal of... Feb 2024To compare clinical outcomes, knee stability and complications, failure, and revision rates after anterior cruciate ligament repair (ACLr) with dynamic intraligamentary... (Review)
Review
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.
PURPOSE
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.
METHODS
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).
RESULTS
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.
CONCLUSIONS
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 OF EVIDENCE
Level I, systematic review of Level I studies.
PubMed: 38417640
DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2023.12.011