Modified Jobe Versus Docking Technique for Elbow Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Clinical Outcomes

被引:18
作者
Looney, Austin M. [1 ,2 ]
Wang, David X. [1 ,2 ]
Conroy, Christine M. [1 ,2 ]
Israel, Jake E. [1 ,2 ]
Bodendorfer, Blake M. [1 ,2 ]
Fryar, Caroline M. [1 ,3 ]
Pianka, Mark A. [1 ,2 ]
Fackler, Nathan P. [1 ,2 ]
Ciccotti, Michael G. [1 ,4 ]
Chang, Edward S. [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Fairfax Nova Hosp, Nova Sports Med, Falls Church, VA USA
[2] Georgetown Univ Hosp, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Washington, DC 20007 USA
[3] Fairfax Inova Hosp, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Falls Church, VA USA
[4] Thomas Jefferson Univ, Rothman Inst, Philadelphia, PA 19107 USA
关键词
elbow; baseball; ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction; Tommy John surgery; overhead athlete; valgus elbow instability; MUSCLE-SPLITTING APPROACH; BASEBALL PLAYERS; NONOPERATIVE TREATMENT; PUBLICATION BIAS; INJURIES; REPAIR; RETURN; FILL; TRIM;
D O I
10.1177/0363546520921160
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: The modified Jobe and docking techniques are the most common techniques used for elbow ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) reconstruction. Previous systematic reviews have suggested that the docking technique results in superior outcomes as compared with the Jobe (figure-of-8) technique. However, these included results from earlier studies in which the flexor-pronator mass (FPM) was detached and an obligatory submuscular ulnar nerve transposition was performed. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to compare the outcomes and return-to-play (RTP) time between the docking and figure-of-8 techniques for UCL reconstruction. We hypothesized that there would be no significant difference in the proportion of excellent outcomes between techniques when the FPM was preserved and no obligatory submuscular ulnar nerve transposition was performed. We also hypothesized that there would be no significant difference in RTP time between techniques. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: This study was performed in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. In the primary analysis, techniques were compared in random effects models by using the restricted maximum likelihood method, with weighted effect sizes calculated as the Freeman-Tukey double-arcsine transformed proportion of excellent outcomes for variance stabilization and with summary effects estimated from the inverse double-arcsine transformation per the harmonic mean of the sample sizes. Mean RTP times for techniques were compared in a separate model. Results: There were 21 eligible articles identified, with results for 1842 UCL reconstructions (n = 320, docking; n = 1466, figure-of-8). Without controlling for the effects of flexor-pronator detachment and submuscular ulnar nerve transposition, a significantly larger proportion of excellent outcomes was observed with docking reconstruction (86.58%; 95% CI, 80.42%-91.85%) than with figure-of-8 reconstruction (76.76%; 95% CI, 69.65%-83.25%;P= .031); however, there was no significant difference between techniques when controlling for FPM preservation or detachment with submuscular nerve transposition (P= .139). There was no significant difference between techniques in time to return to sports (P= .729), although no reconstructions with FPM detachment and submuscular ulnar nerve transposition were available for RTP time analysis. Conclusion: There was no significant difference in the proportion of excellent Conway Scale outcomes or RTP time between the docking and modified Jobe techniques for UCL reconstruction when the FPM was preserved and routine submuscular ulnar nerve transposition was not performed.
引用
收藏
页码:236 / 248
页数:13
相关论文
共 48 条
[11]   Comparison of Surgical Techniques for Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction in Overhead Athletes [J].
Chang, Edward S. ;
Dodson, Christopher C. ;
Ciccotti, Michael G. .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS, 2016, 24 (03) :135-149
[12]   Ulnar Nerve Complications After Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction of the Elbow A Systematic Review [J].
Clain, Jason B. ;
Vitale, Mark A. ;
Ahmad, Christopher S. ;
Ruchelsman, David E. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2019, 47 (05) :1263-1269
[13]   MEDIAL INSTABILITY OF THE ELBOW IN THROWING ATHLETES - TREATMENT BY REPAIR OR RECONSTRUCTION OF THE ULNAR COLLATERAL LIGAMENT [J].
CONWAY, JE ;
JOBE, FW ;
GLOUSMAN, RE ;
PINK, M .
JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 1992, 74A (01) :67-83
[14]  
Cribari-Neto F, 2010, J STAT SOFTW, V34, P1
[15]  
Deeks JJ., 2019, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, DOI DOI 10.1002/9780470712184.CH9
[16]   Elbow Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction in Javelin Throwers at a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up [J].
Dines, Joshua S. ;
Jones, Kristofer J. ;
Kahlenberg, Cynthia ;
Rosenbaum, Andrew ;
Osbahr, Daryl C. ;
Altchek, David W. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2012, 40 (01) :148-151
[17]   Medial ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction of the elbow in throwing athletes [J].
Dodson, Christopher C. ;
Thomas, Adrian ;
Dines, Joshua S. ;
Nho, Shane J. ;
Williams, Riley J., III ;
Altchek, David W. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2006, 34 (12) :1926-1932
[18]   Biomechanical Comparison of Ulnar Collateral Ligament Repair With Internal Bracing Versus Modified Jobe Reconstruction [J].
Dugas, Jeffrey R. ;
Walters, Brian L. ;
Beason, David P. ;
Fleisig, Glenn S. ;
Chronister, Justin E. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2016, 44 (03) :735-741
[19]   Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction With Gracilis Tendon in Athletes With Intraligamentous Bony Excision Technique and Results [J].
Dugas, Jeffrey R. ;
Bilotta, Jessica ;
Watts, Chad D. ;
Crum, Joshua A. ;
Fleisig, Glenn S. ;
McMichael, Christopher S. ;
Cain, E. Lyle, Jr. ;
Andrews, James R. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2012, 40 (07) :1578-1582
[20]   A nonparametric "trim and fill" method of accounting for publication bias in meta-analysis [J].
Duval, S ;
Tweedie, R .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION, 2000, 95 (449) :89-98