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

被引:17
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
[41]   Methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS):: Development and validation of a new instrument [J].
Slim, K ;
Nini, E ;
Forestier, D ;
Kwiatkowski, F ;
Panis, Y ;
Chipponi, J .
ANZ JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2003, 73 (09) :712-716
[42]   A muscle-splitting approach to the ulnar collateral ligament of the elbow - Neuroanatomy and operative technique [J].
Smith, GR ;
Altchek, DW ;
Pagnani, MJ ;
Keeley, JR .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 1996, 24 (05) :575-580
[43]   COMPLICATIONS AND OUTCOMES AFTER MEDIAL ULNAR COLLATERAL LIGAMENT RECONSTRUCTION A Meta-Regression and Systematic Review [J].
Somerson, Jeremy S. ;
Petersen, John P. ;
Neradilek, Moni B. ;
Cizik, Amy M. ;
Gee, Albert O. .
JBJS REVIEWS, 2018, 6 (05) :e4
[44]   Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: Guidelines on choice of axis [J].
Sterne, JAC ;
Egger, M .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2001, 54 (10) :1046-1055
[45]   Ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction in athletes: Muscle-splitting approach without transposition of the ulnar nerve [J].
Thompson, WH ;
Jobe, FW ;
Yocum, LA ;
Pink, MM .
JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2001, 10 (02) :152-157
[46]   The outcome of elbow ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction in overhead athletes - A systematic review [J].
Vitale, Mark A. ;
Ahmad, Christopher S. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2008, 36 (06) :1193-1205
[47]  
Voleti Pramod B, 2013, J Bone Joint Surg Am, V95, pe2, DOI 10.2106/JBJS.L.00046
[48]   A Systematic Review of Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction Techniques [J].
Watson, Jonathan N. ;
McQueen, Peter ;
Hutchinson, Mark R. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2014, 42 (10) :2510-2516