Search

Purpose The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction yields better improvement in stability and functional recovery than the single-bundle technique. Methods An Internet search was performed of the Pubmed, Embase, AMED, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang and VIP databases to find all published randomized controlled trials of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction treated with the double-bundle versus single-bundle technique. Outcomes of stability improvement and functional recovery were meta-analyzed. Results One thousand six hundred sixty-seven patients in 19 randomized controlled trials were involved in the meta-analysis. The overall relative risk (with 95% confidence interval) calculated with the random effects model in the pivot shift test and the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) objective score for single-bundle versus double-bundle ACL reconstruction were 0.77 (0.67, 0.89) and 0.80 (0.68, 0.93), respectively. The overall relative risk calculated with the fixed effects model in the Lachman test was 0.84 (0.78 to 0.92). The overall standard mean differences (with 95% confidence interval) calculated with the random effects model were 0.26 (0.05, 0.46) for anterior side-to-side difference; −0.08 (−0.28,0.12) for Lysholm score; Tegner activity scale, −0.41 (−0.85, 0.03) for Tegner activity score; and −0.08 (−0.32, 0.15) for IKDC subjective score. Conclusions Meta-analysis of random controlled trials revealed that double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction resulted in significantly better anterior and rotational stability and higher IKDC objective scores compared with single-bundle reconstruction. However, the meta-analysis did not detect any significant differences in subjective outcome measures between double-bundle and single-bundle reconstruction, as evidenced by the Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale, and IKDC subjective score. Level of Evidence Level II, meta-analysis of Level I and II studies.

SummaryObjectiveWe undertook this study to determine whether thrombin-cleaved osteopontin (OPN) in synovial fluid (SF) represents a useful marker of osteoarthritis (OA) progression in the posterior cruciate ligament transection (PCLT) OA rabbit model.MethodPCLT was performed on the right knee joints of 48 rabbits. The rabbits were then sacrificed separately at 4, 8, 16, and 24 weeks post-surgery, when the joint was harvested and macroscopic and histological assessments of articular cartilage were performed. Thrombin-cleaved OPN product in SF was determined using Western blotting and the levels were measured using an enzyme-linked immunoassay.ResultsThe macroscopic and histological scores for PCLT knees were already elevated 4 weeks after surgery and increased with time. Western blotting showed the presence of thrombin-cleaved OPN in SF from PCLT knees. Thrombin-cleaved OPN levels in SF were elevated at 4 weeks (P

Vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP) is a molecule shared by the neuroendocrine immune network and is considered to be a potential candidate for treatment of inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. Although some recent studies demonstrate that VIP has a protective role in animal RA models, its variant in different disease grade of OA remains uncertain.Fifty patients with primary knee OA and ten controls with severe trauma were enrolled. Synovial fluid and articular cartilage samples were collected from specimens of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or knee above amputation. VIP levels in these samples were assessed by ELISA and immunohistochemistry. Kellgren-Lawrence criteria and Mankin score were taken to determine the disease severity.Compared to the controls, OA patients have lower VIP concentration in synovial fluid (659.70±112.79, 95%CI 579.01-740.38 vs 470.83±156.40, 95%CI 426.38-515.28 pg/mL, P0.001) and articular cartilage (0.26±0.02, 95%CI 0.24-0.28 vs 0.20±0.04, 95%CI 0.18-0.21, P0.001). Subsequent analysis show that the VIP expression in synovial fluid is markedly correlated with its OD in articular cartilage (Pearson's r=0.580, P0.001). Furthermore, the synovial fluid and articular cartilage levels of VIP both demonstrated to be negatively correlated with severity of disease (Spearman's ρ=0.838, P0.001; Spearman's ρ=0.814, P0.001).VIP in synovial fluid and articular cartilage is negatively associated with progressive joint damage in OA and is a potential indictor of disease severity.

Purpose To compare autograft with allograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by conducting a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and a systematic review of overlapping systematic reviews. Methods PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through June 28, 2014, to identify Level I and II evidence RCTs with a minimum follow-up of 2 years and systematic reviews that compared autograft with allograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Both objective and subjective outcomes with respect to knee stability and function were meta-analyzed and summarized. The overall risk ratio (RR) or the weighted mean difference (WMD) was calculated using either a fixed- or random-effects model. The quality of evidence of the systematic review of overlapping systematic reviews was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. Results Nine RCTs and 10 systematic reviews were included. In general, statistically significant differences in favor of autograft were observed for clinical failure (RR, 0.47; P = .0007), the Lachman test (RR, 1.18; P = .03), the instrumented laxity test (WMD, −0.88; P = .004), and the Tegner score (WMD, 0.36; P = .004). When subgroup analyses were conducted based on whether irradiation was used, autograft achieved better clinical outcomes than irradiated allograft in terms of the Lysholm score, clinical failure, the pivot-shift test, the Lachman test, the instrumented laxity test, and the Tegner score. In addition, there were no significant differences between the autograft and nonirradiated allograft groups for all 8 indices. The final results of this systematic review of overlapping systematic reviews were in accordance with our meta-analysis. Conclusions Autograft had greater advantages than irradiated allograft with respect to function and stability, whereas there were no significant differences between autograft and nonirradiated allograft. Level of Evidence Level IV, meta-analysis of Level II, III, and IV studies.