Debieux Pedro, Franciozi Carlos E S, Lenza Mário, Tamaoki Marcel Jun, Magnussen Robert A, Faloppa Flávio, Belloti João Carlos
Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Rua Borges Lagoa, 783 - 5th Floor, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil, 04038-032.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Jul 24;7(7):CD009772. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009772.pub2.
Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears are frequently treated with surgical reconstruction with grafts, frequently patella tendon or hamstrings. Interference screws are often used to secure the graft in bone tunnels in the femur and tibia. This review examines whether bioabsorbable interference screws give better results than metal interference screws when used for graft fixation in ACL reconstruction.
To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of bioabsorbable versus metallic interference screws for graft fixation in ACL reconstruction.
We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, trial registers and reference lists of articles. Date of search: January 2016.
We included randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials comparing bioabsorbable with metallic interferences screws in ACL reconstruction. The main outcomes sought were subjective-rated knee function, failure of treatment, and activity level.
At least two review authors selected eligible trials, independently assessed risk of bias, and cross-checked data. Data were pooled whenever relevant and possible. Requests for further information were sent to the original study authors.
We included 12 trials (11 randomised and one quasi-randomised) involving a total of 944 participants, and reporting follow-up results for 774. Participants in the 12 trials underwent ACL reconstruction with either hamstring tendon grafts (five trials) or patellar tendon grafts (seven trials). Trials participants were randomly allocated to bioabsorbable or metallic interference screws for graft fixation in both femur and tibia (seven trials); femur only (three trials); tibia only (one trial); location was not reported in the remaining trial. A variety of materials was used for the bioabsorbable screws, Poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) being the most common. The metallic screws, where reported, were titanium.All trials were at high risk of bias, which invariably included performance bias. Seven trials were at high risk of attrition bias and eight at high risk of reporting bias. The quasi-randomised trial was assessed as being at high risk for selection bias. Based on these study limitations and insufficiency of the available data, we judged the quality of evidence for all outcomes was very low.The majority of the available data for patient-reported knee function was presented as Lysholm scores (0 to 100; higher scores = better function). There was very low quality but consistent evidence of no clinically important differences between the two groups in Lysholm scores at 12 months follow-up (mean difference (MD) -0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.48 to 1.32; three trials, 168 participants); 24 months (MD 0.35, 95% CI -1.27 to 1.98; three trials, 113 participants) or five or more years follow-up (MD 1.23, 95% CI -2.00 to 4.47; two trials, 71 participants). This lack of between-group differences was also reported for Lysholm scores in several trials that did not provide sufficient data for pooling as well as for other self-reported knee function scores reported in several trials.Treatment failure was represented by the summed data for implant breakage during surgery and major postoperative complications (implant failure, graft rupture, symptomatic foreign body reactions, effusion and treated arthrofibrosis and related conditions) that were usually described in the trial reports as requiring further substantive treatment. There is very low-quality evidence of greater treatment failure in the bioabsorbable screw group (60/451 versus 29/434; risk ratio (RR) 1.94 favouring metallic screw fixation, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.93; 885 participants, 11 studies). In a population with an assumed risk (based on the median control group risk) of 56 participants per 1000 having treatment failure after metallic screw fixation, this equates to 53 more (95% CI 17 to 108 more) per 1000 participants having treatment failure after bioabsorbable screw fixation. All 16 intraoperative complications in the bioabsorbable screw group were implant breakages upon screw insertion. Treatment failure defined as postoperative complications only still favoured the metallic screw group but the 95% CI also included the potential for a greater risk of treatment failure after metallic screw fixation: 44/451 versus 29/434; RR 1.44, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.23. Based on the assumed risk of 56 participants per 1000 having postoperative treatment failure after metallic screw fixation, this equates to 25 more (95% CI 4 fewer and 69 more) per 1000 participants having this outcome after bioabsorbable screw fixation.There was very low-quality evidence of very similar activity levels in the two groups at 12 and 24 months follow-up measured via the Tegner score (0 to 10; higher scores = greater activity): 12 months (MD 0.08, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.55; 122 participants, two studies); 24 months (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.57; 72 participants, two studies).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very low-quality evidence of no difference in self-reported knee function and levels of activity between bioabsorbable and metallic interference screws for graft fixation in ACL reconstruction. There is very low-quality evidence that bioabsorbable screws may be associated with more overall treatment failures, including implant breakage during surgery. Further research does not appear to be a priority, but if undertaken, should also examine costs.
前交叉韧带(ACL)撕裂常通过移植手术重建进行治疗,常用的移植材料是髌腱或腘绳肌肌腱。通常使用干涉螺钉将移植组织固定于股骨和胫骨的骨隧道中。本综述旨在探讨在ACL重建中用于固定移植组织时,可吸收干涉螺钉是否比金属干涉螺钉效果更佳。
评估可吸收与金属干涉螺钉在ACL重建中固定移植组织的效果(益处和危害)。
我们检索了Cochrane骨、关节与肌肉创伤组专业注册库、CENTRAL(Cochrane图书馆)、MEDLINE、Embase、LILACS、试验注册库以及文章的参考文献列表。检索日期:2016年1月。
我们纳入了比较可吸收与金属干涉螺钉在ACL重建中应用的随机对照试验和半随机试验。主要观察指标为膝关节功能主观评分、治疗失败及活动水平。
至少两名综述作者选择符合条件的试验,独立评估偏倚风险并交叉核对数据。只要相关且可行,数据即进行合并。向原始研究作者发送了进一步信息请求。
我们纳入了12项试验(11项随机试验和1项半随机试验),共944名参与者,其中774名有随访结果。12项试验中的参与者接受了ACL重建,使用的移植材料为腘绳肌肌腱(5项试验)或髌腱(7项试验)。试验参与者被随机分配接受可吸收或金属干涉螺钉用于股骨和胫骨的移植组织固定(7项试验);仅用于股骨(3项试验);仅用于胫骨(1项试验);其余试验未报告固定位置。可吸收螺钉使用了多种材料,聚-L-乳酸(PLLA)最为常见。报告的金属螺钉为钛合金材质。所有试验均存在较高偏倚风险,均包括实施偏倚。7项试验存在较高失访偏倚风险,8项试验存在较高报告偏倚风险。半随机试验被评估为存在较高选择偏倚风险。基于这些研究局限性和现有数据的不足,我们判断所有结局的证据质量均非常低。
大多数关于患者报告的膝关节功能的现有数据以Lysholm评分呈现(0至100分;分数越高,功能越好)。在12个月随访时,两组Lysholm评分无临床重要差异的证据质量很低但一致(平均差(MD)-0.08,95%置信区间(CI)-1.48至1.32;三项试验,168名参与者);24个月时(MD 0.35,95%CI -1.27至1.98;三项试验,113名参与者)或五年及以上随访时(MD 1.23,95%CI -2.00至4.47;两项试验,71名参与者)。在一些未提供足够数据进行合并的试验以及一些试验中报告的其他自我报告的膝关节功能评分中,也报告了两组间Lysholm评分缺乏差异。
治疗失败以手术中植入物断裂和主要术后并发症(植入物失败、移植组织破裂、有症状的异物反应、积液以及治疗关节纤维化及相关病症)的汇总数据表示,这些通常在试验报告中描述为需要进一步实质性治疗。有非常低质量的证据表明可吸收螺钉组治疗失败率更高(60/451对比29/434;风险比(RR)1.94,倾向于金属螺钉固定,95%CI 1.29至2.93;885名参与者,11项研究)。在假设基于金属螺钉固定后每1000名参与者中有56名有治疗失败风险的人群中,这相当于可吸收螺钉固定后每千名参与者中多59例(95%CI多17至108例)治疗失败。可吸收螺钉组的16例术中并发症均为螺钉插入时植入物断裂。仅将治疗失败定义为术后并发症时,仍倾向于金属螺钉组,但95%CI也包括金属螺钉固定后治疗失败风险更高的可能性:44/451对比29/434;RR 1.44,95%CI 0.93至2.23。基于假设金属螺钉固定后每1000名参与者中有56名有术后治疗失败风险,这相当于可吸收螺钉固定后每千名参与者中多25例(95%CI少4例至多69例)出现此结局。
在12个月和24个月随访时,通过Tegner评分(0至10分;分数越高,活动量越大)测量,两组活动水平非常相似的证据质量很低:12个月时(MD 0.08,95%CI -0.39至0.55;122名参与者,两项研究);24个月时(MD 0.01,95%CI -0.54至0.57;72名参与者,两项研究)。
在ACL重建中用于固定移植组织时,可吸收与金属干涉螺钉在自我报告的膝关节功能和活动水平方面无差异的证据质量非常低。有非常低质量的证据表明可吸收螺钉可能与更多的总体治疗失败相关,包括手术中植入物断裂。进一步研究似乎并非优先事项,但如果进行,也应检查成本。