All-inside versus traditional techniques of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction:meta-analysis of therapeutic efficacy and radiological outcomes
- VernacularTitle:关节镜下全内技术与传统技术重建前交叉韧带:疗效和放射学结果的Meta分析
- Author:
Feng WANG
1
;
Chunfeng CAO
1
;
Chao HE
1
;
Tao ZHANG
1
;
Zixian ZHOU
1
;
Fengchen ZHU
1
Author Information
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords: anterior cruciate ligament; anterior cruciate ligament injury; all-inside technique; suspension fixation; transtibial tunnel technique; anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; arthroscope; Meta-analysis; randomized controlled trial
- From: Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research 2025;29(35):7629-7638
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
- Abstract: OBJECTIVE:To compare the clinical efficacy and radiological results of arthroscopic all-inside technique and traditional technique in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.METHODS:Databases such as CNKI,WanFang,VIP,PubMed,Web of Science,Embase,and Cochrane Library were searched for literature on all-inside technique and traditional technique in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.The search time was from the establishment of each database to September 2024.Meta-analysis was conducted on the included literature.RESULTS:(1)A total of 17 articles were included in the meta-analysis,with 631 patients in the all-inside technique reconstruction group and 626 patients in the traditional technique reconstruction group.The earliest time for the last follow-up was half a year after surgery,and the latest was 5 years after surgery.Most follow-up period was 2 years.(2)Meta-analysis results showed that compared with traditional anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction,the all-inside technique had a thicker graft during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction[mean difference(MD)=0.20,95％confidence interval(CI)(0.09,0.31),P=0.000 5],smaller postoperative maximum diameter[standardized mean difference(SMD)=-3.64,95％CI(-6.00,-1.28),P=0.002]and volume[SMD=-3.69,95％CI(-5.37,-2.00),P＜0.000 1]of the tibial tunnel,and higher International Knee Documentation Committee subjective scores[MD=2.41,95％CI(0.49,4.32),P=0.01]and Lysholm scores[MD=1.11,95％CI(0.42,1.8),P=0.002]2 years after surgery.However,the operation time was relatively longer[MD=10.06,95％CI(4.71,15.4),P=0.000 2],and the knee stability was poorer after 2 years[SMD=0.3,95％CI(0.04,0.55),P=0.02].No significant differences were found between the two groups in the following aspects:the subjective scores of the International Knee Documentation Committee at 6 months and 1 year postoperatively[MD=-0.05,95％CI(-1.96,1.83),P=0.96;MD=0.51,95％CI(-1.17,2.19),P=0.55];the difference in anterior laxity of bilateral knees at 1 year postoperatively[SMD=-0.02,95％CI(-0.3,0.27),P=0.9];the Lysholm score at 6 months postoperatively[MD=0.87,95％CI(-0.15,1.89),P=0.09];the objective score of the International Knee Documentation Committee at the last follow-up[RR=0.95,95％CI(0.86,1.06),P=0.37];the American Knee Society Score at the last follow-up[MD=0.33,95％CI(-0.55,1.21),P=0.47];the Tegner score at the last follow-up[MD=0.05,95％CI(-0.11,0.22),P=0.53];the negative rate of the pivot shift test at the last follow-up[RR=0.92,95％CI(0.83,1.01),P=0.09];the postoperative revision rate at the last follow-up[RR=2.2,95％CI(0.98,4.92),P=0.05];and the result of the single-leg hop test at the last follow-up[MD=-0.06,95％CI(-4.99,4.86),P=0.98].CONCLUSION:There were no significant differences in most functional outcome scores and the position of the tibial tunnel between the all-inside technique and the traditional technique after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.The all-inside technique was more favorable in terms of subjective International Knee Documentation Committee scores and Lysholm scores at 2 years postoperatively.Meanwhile,the knee joint was more stable 2 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the traditional technique.In addition,it was found that the graft was thicker during the all-inside technique,while the diameter and volume of the tibial tunnel were smaller postoperatively,with more bone tissue preserved.Nevertheless,the operation time of the all-inside technique was longer.
