Knee arthroscopy versus conservative management in patients with degenerative knee disease: a systematic review
Author
dc.contributor.author
Brignardello Petersen, Romina
Author
dc.contributor.author
Guyatt, Gordon H.
Author
dc.contributor.author
Buchbinder, Rachelle
Author
dc.contributor.author
Poolman, Rudolf W.
Author
dc.contributor.author
Schandelmaier, Stefan
Author
dc.contributor.author
Chang, Yaping
Author
dc.contributor.author
Sadeghirad, Behnam
Author
dc.contributor.author
Evaniew, Nathan
Author
dc.contributor.author
Vandvik, Per O.
Admission date
dc.date.accessioned
2018-05-16T21:31:52Z
Available date
dc.date.available
2018-05-16T21:31:52Z
Publication date
dc.date.issued
2017
Cita de ítem
dc.identifier.citation
BMJ Open 2017;7: e016114
es_ES
Identifier
dc.identifier.other
doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017- 016114
Identifier
dc.identifier.uri
https://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/147834
Abstract
dc.description.abstract
Objective: To determine the effects and complications of arthroscopic surgery compared with conservative management strategies in patients with degenerative knee disease.
Design: Systematic review.
Main outcome measures: Pain, function, adverse events.
Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Google Scholar and Open Grey up to August 2016.
Eligibility criteria: For effects, randomised clinical trials (RCTs) comparing arthroscopic surgery with a conservative management strategy (including sham surgery) in patients with degenerative knee disease. For complications, RCTs and observational studies.
Review methods: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias for patient-important outcomes. A parallel guideline committee (BMJ Rapid Recommendations) provided input on the design and interpretation of the systematic review, including selection of patient-important outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty (quality) of the evidence.
Results: We included 13 RCTs and 12 observational studies. With respect to pain, the review identified high-certainty evidence that knee arthroscopy results in a very small reduction in pain up to 3 months (mean difference = 5.4 on a 100-point scale, 95% CI 2.0 to 8.8) and very small or no pain reduction up to 2 years (mean difference = 3.1, 95% CI -0.2 to 6.4) when compared with conservative management. With respect to function, the review identified moderate-certainty evidence that knee arthroscopy results in a very small improvement in the short term (mean difference = 4.9 on a 100-point scale, 95% CI 1.5 to 8.4) and very small or no improved function up to 2 years (mean difference = 3.2, 95% CI -0.5 to 6.8). Alternative presentations of magnitude of effect, and associated sensitivity analyses, were consistent with the findings of the primary analysis. Low-quality evidence suggested a very low probability of serious complications after knee arthroscopy.
Conclusions: Over the long term, patients who undergo knee arthroscopy versus those who receive conservative management strategies do not have important benefits in pain or function.
es_ES
Patrocinador
dc.description.sponsorship
Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)