Bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts versus hamstring autografts for reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament: meta-analysis

Abstract Objectives To compare bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts with hamstring autografts for reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. Data sources Medline, WebSPIRS, Science Citation Index, Current Contents databases, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Review methods A...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inBMJ Vol. 332; no. 7548; pp. 995 - 998
Main Authors Biau, David J, Tournoux, Caroline, Katsahian, Sandrine, Schranz, Peter J, Nizard, Rémy S
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published London British Medical Journal Publishing Group 29.04.2006
British Medical Association
BMJ Publishing Group LTD
BMJ Publishing Group
BMJ Publishing Group Ltd
EditionInternational edition
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Abstract Objectives To compare bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts with hamstring autografts for reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. Data sources Medline, WebSPIRS, Science Citation Index, Current Contents databases, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Review methods All randomised controlled trials reporting one or more outcome related to stability (instrumented measurement of knee laxity, Lachman test, or pivot shift test) and morbidity (anterior knee pain, kneeling test, loss of extension, or graft failure). Study quality was assessed by using a 5 point scale. Random effect models were used to pool the data. Heterogeneity in the effect of treatment was tested on the basis of study quality, randomisation status, and number of tendon strands used. Results 24 trials of 18 cohorts (1512 patients) met the inclusion criteria. Study quality was poor for nine studies and fair for nine studies. The weighted mean difference of the instrumented measurement of knee laxity was 0.36 (95% confidence interval 0.01 to 0.71; P = 0.04). Relative risk of a positive Lachman test was 1.22 (1.01 to 1.47; P = 0.04), of anterior knee pain 0.57 (0.44 to 0.74; P < 0.0001), of a positive kneeling test 0.26 (0.14 to 0.48; P < 0.0001), and of loss of extension 0.52 (0.34 to 0.80; P = 0.003). Other results were not significant. Conclusion Morbidity was lower for hamstring autografts than for patellar tendon autografts. Evidence that patellar tendon autografts offer better stability was weak. The poor quality of the studies calls into question the robustness of the analyses.
Bibliography:ArticleID:bmj.38784.384109.2F
local:bmj;332/7548/995
istex:09D8DC1C223ED2D600FE0A68B1EBFC35704B34B5
PMID:16603564
Correspondence to: D Biau
ark:/67375/NVC-19NSH8FP-W
href:bmj-332-995.pdf
ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
Additional references w1-w24, details of the outcome tests (appendix A), the five point quality score (appendix B), and the search items appear on bmj.com
Ethical approval: Not required.
Correspondence to: D Biau djmbiau@yahoo.fr
Funding: None.
Competing interests: None declared.
Contributors: DJB conceived, designed, and developed the protocol and search strategy for the review; contacted authors, journals, and organisations; identified and extracted data from included trials; analysed and interpreted the results; and wrote the manuscript. CT identified and extracted data from included trials and participated in the analysis and interpretation of results and revision of the manuscript. SK analysed and interpreted the results and participated in the drafting and revision of the manuscript. PJS participated in the analysis and interpretation of results and in the drafting and revision of the manuscript. RSN contributed to the conception, design, and development of the protocol, the interpretation of the results, and the drafting and revision of the manuscript. DJB is guarantor.
We thank S Abdulrazik, L Ejerhed, K Eriksson, J Feller, A Harilainen, K Jansson, J Kartus, G Laxdal, M Röpke, and K Webster who gave additional information on published and unpublished trials and helped in the literature search. We also thank A Anderson, D Brand, E Eriksson, K Eriksson, J Feller, M Hantes, M Marcacci, H Roos, R Smith, and J Webb who helped in the literature search. Their participation does not necessarily mean that they agree with the conclusions of our study.
ISSN:0959-8138
0959-8146
1468-5833
1756-1833
DOI:10.1136/bmj.38784.384109.2F