Association between incision technique for hamstring tendon harvest in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and the risk of injury to the infra-patellar branch of the saphenous nerve: a meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
To determine how the incision technique for hamstring tendon (HT) harvest in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction affects the risk of injury to the IPBSN and clinical outcome. A systematic literature search of the MEDLINE/Pubmed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and EBSCOhost electronic databases and clinicaltrials.gov for unpublished studies was performed to identify comparative studies investigating injury to the IPBSN after HT ACL reconstruction by comparing at least two different incision techniques. Data were extracted for the number of patients with evidence of any neurologic deficit corresponding to injury to the IPBSN, area of sensory deficit, the Lysholm score and patient satisfaction. The mean difference (MD) in study outcome between incision groups was assessed. The relative risk (RR) and the number needed to treat (NNT) were calculated. The Chi-square and Higgins’ I2 tests were applied to test heterogeneity. Data were pooled using a Mantel–Haenszel random-effects model if the statistical heterogeneity was > 50% and a fixed-effects model if the statistical heterogeneity was < 50%. The risk of bias was evaluated according to the Cochrane Database questionnaire and the quality of evidence was graded according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines. A total of eight studies (three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five comparative studies) were included, of which six compared vertical and oblique incisions, one horizontal and vertical incisions, and one compared all three techniques. HT harvest was performed through a vertical incision in 329 patients, through an oblique incision in 195 patients and through a horizontal incision in 151 patients. Considering the meta-analysis of the RCTs, the performance of a vertical incision significantly increased the risk of causing IPBSN deficiency compared with both oblique and horizontal incision [RR 1.65 (CI 1.10–2.49, p = 0.02) and RR 2.45 (CI 1.73–3.47, p < 0.0001), respectively]. A significantly larger area of sensory deficit was found with vertical incisions compared with oblique ones, with an MD of 22.91 cm2 (95% CI 7.73–38.08; p = 0.04). No significant differences were found between the incision techniques in relation to patient-reported outcomes. The same trend was obtained after the performing a meta-analysis of all eight included studies. The quality of evidence in this meta-analysis was determined as “low” to “moderate”, mostly due to inadequate methods of randomization and high heterogeneity among the included studies. The performance of a vertical incision to harvest HTs for ACL reconstruction significantly increased the risk of iatrogenic injury to the IPBSN compared with both oblique and horizontal incisions. Level I–III, meta-analysis of comparative studies.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,008 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».