Early or delayed anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Is one superior? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Anterior cruciate ligament
Meta-analysis
Reconstruction
Timing of reconstruction
Journal
European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie
ISSN: 1432-1068
Titre abrégé: Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol
Pays: France
ID NLM: 9518037
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2019
Aug 2019
Historique:
received:
16
12
2018
accepted:
23
04
2019
pubmed:
17
5
2019
medline:
18
1
2020
entrez:
17
5
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is a rapidly developing orthopaedic field and an area of notable clinical equipoise. The optimal timing of surgery in an acute (< 3 weeks) or delayed (≥ 3 weeks) time frame remains unresolved with a 2010 meta-analysis concluding no difference between these two groups across multiple outcomes. In an era of evidence-based medicine, surgeons are still basing their decisions on when to operate on little more than anecdotal evidence and personal preference. Clear guidance is required to determine whether the timing of surgery can optimise outcomes in this largely young and active patient cohort. A systematic literature search was performed in January 2018 of Embase, Medline and OpenGrey in accordance with (PRISMA) guidelines. A total of 658 articles were retrieved, with 6 suitable for inclusion, covering 576 ACL reconstructions. Four meta-analyses were performed assessing subjective measures of Tegner activity scale and Lysholm score, and objective measures of arthroscopically identified meniscal and chondral injury. Additional relevant outcome measures underwent narrative review. Study bias was assessed and reported using the Downs and Black checklist. A statistically significant difference of 0.39 points was found on the Tegner activity scale in favour of early surgery within 3 weeks (RR 0.39, CI 0.10, 0.67, p = 0.008). No statistically difference was found between groups for the patient-reported Lysholm score (RR - 0.18, CI - 2.40, 2.05, p = 0.17). There was no statistically significant difference between groups for intra-operative findings of meniscal lesions (RR 0.84, CI 0.66, 1.08, p = 0.17). A trend towards significance was observed for the incidence of chondral lesions in the early surgery group (RR 0.56, CI 0.31, 1.02, p = 0.06). All the studies were rated either fair or good on the Downs and Black checklist with no study excluded due to bias. Although there was a statistically significant result for the Tegner activity scale in favour of early surgery, the magnitude of the effect is unlikely to translate into any clinically meaningful difference. At present, there remains no clear evidence to determine superiority of acute/early or delayed reconstruction of a ruptured anterior cruciate ligament. Further research through methodologically robust randomised controlled trials or through the UK National Ligament Registry may help to provide clearer guidance.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is a rapidly developing orthopaedic field and an area of notable clinical equipoise. The optimal timing of surgery in an acute (< 3 weeks) or delayed (≥ 3 weeks) time frame remains unresolved with a 2010 meta-analysis concluding no difference between these two groups across multiple outcomes. In an era of evidence-based medicine, surgeons are still basing their decisions on when to operate on little more than anecdotal evidence and personal preference. Clear guidance is required to determine whether the timing of surgery can optimise outcomes in this largely young and active patient cohort.
METHODS
METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed in January 2018 of Embase, Medline and OpenGrey in accordance with (PRISMA) guidelines. A total of 658 articles were retrieved, with 6 suitable for inclusion, covering 576 ACL reconstructions. Four meta-analyses were performed assessing subjective measures of Tegner activity scale and Lysholm score, and objective measures of arthroscopically identified meniscal and chondral injury. Additional relevant outcome measures underwent narrative review. Study bias was assessed and reported using the Downs and Black checklist.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A statistically significant difference of 0.39 points was found on the Tegner activity scale in favour of early surgery within 3 weeks (RR 0.39, CI 0.10, 0.67, p = 0.008). No statistically difference was found between groups for the patient-reported Lysholm score (RR - 0.18, CI - 2.40, 2.05, p = 0.17). There was no statistically significant difference between groups for intra-operative findings of meniscal lesions (RR 0.84, CI 0.66, 1.08, p = 0.17). A trend towards significance was observed for the incidence of chondral lesions in the early surgery group (RR 0.56, CI 0.31, 1.02, p = 0.06). All the studies were rated either fair or good on the Downs and Black checklist with no study excluded due to bias.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Although there was a statistically significant result for the Tegner activity scale in favour of early surgery, the magnitude of the effect is unlikely to translate into any clinically meaningful difference. At present, there remains no clear evidence to determine superiority of acute/early or delayed reconstruction of a ruptured anterior cruciate ligament. Further research through methodologically robust randomised controlled trials or through the UK National Ligament Registry may help to provide clearer guidance.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31093753
doi: 10.1007/s00590-019-02442-2
pii: 10.1007/s00590-019-02442-2
pmc: PMC6647395
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1277-1289Références
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 1999;119(5-6):258-62
pubmed: 10447618
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001 Apr;83(3):348-54
pubmed: 11341418
Am J Sports Med. 2001 Sep-Oct;29(5):600-13
pubmed: 11573919
Am J Sports Med. 2002 Nov-Dec;30(6):851-6
pubmed: 12435652
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2003 May;85(4):521-4
pubmed: 12793556
Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(27):iii-x, 1-173
pubmed: 14499048
Arthritis Rheum. 2004 Sep;50(9):2811-9
pubmed: 15457449
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Oct;(427 Suppl):S6-15
pubmed: 15480076
Arthroscopy. 2004 Nov;20(9):974-80
pubmed: 15525931
Am J Sports Med. 2005 Mar;33(3):335-46
pubmed: 15716249
Am J Sports Med. 2005 Mar;33(3):347-59
pubmed: 15716250
Knee. 2006 Jun;13(3):184-8
pubmed: 16603363
BMJ. 2006 Apr 29;332(7548):995-1001
pubmed: 16603564
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007 Feb;455:162-8
pubmed: 17279043
Am J Sports Med. 2007 Oct;35(10):1756-69
pubmed: 17761605
Am J Sports Med. 2008 Apr;36(4):656-62
pubmed: 18212347
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2008 Jul;16(7):376-84
pubmed: 18611995
J Knee Surg. 2008 Jul;21(3):217-24
pubmed: 18686484
J Knee Surg. 2008 Jul;21(3):225-34
pubmed: 18686485
Am J Sports Med. 2009 Mar;37(3):471-80
pubmed: 19059893
Am J Sports Med. 2009 May;37(5):955-61
pubmed: 19251674
Am J Sports Med. 2009 May;37(5):890-7
pubmed: 19261899
BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2700
pubmed: 19622552
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010 Mar;18(3):304-11
pubmed: 19838672
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010 Apr;92(4):521-6
pubmed: 20357328
Am J Sports Med. 2010 Aug;38(8):1533-41
pubmed: 20566719
N Engl J Med. 2010 Jul 22;363(4):331-42
pubmed: 20660401
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011 Mar;19(3):488-94
pubmed: 21063680
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2012 Aug;22(4):495-501
pubmed: 21210852
Knee. 2012 Jan;19(1):14-9
pubmed: 21216599
Orthopedics. 2012 May;35(5):408-12
pubmed: 22588397
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011 Nov;63 Suppl 11:S208-28
pubmed: 22588746
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011 Nov;63 Suppl 11:S240-52
pubmed: 22588748
Res Sports Med. 2012 Jul;20(3-4):157-79
pubmed: 22742074
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012 Oct 3;94(19):1737-48
pubmed: 23032584
Arthritis. 2012;2012:698709
pubmed: 23082249
Int Orthop. 2013 Feb;37(2):181-6
pubmed: 23322063
Br Med Bull. 2013;105:185-99
pubmed: 23337796
BMJ. 2013 Jan 24;346:f232
pubmed: 23349407
Am J Sports Med. 1990 May-Jun;18(3):292-9
pubmed: 2372081
Arthroscopy. 2013 Nov;29(11):1863-71
pubmed: 24053890
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014 May;22(5):1009-23
pubmed: 24343279
Am J Sports Med. 2014 Jul;42(7):1583-91
pubmed: 24801663
Arthroscopy. 2014 Nov;30(11):1505-12
pubmed: 25124482
Joints. 2015 Jun 08;3(1):25-30
pubmed: 26151036
Br J Sports Med. 2016 Jun;50(12):744-50
pubmed: 27034129
Orthop J Sports Med. 2016 Mar 15;4(3):2325967116634074
pubmed: 27047983
J Orthop. 2015 Feb 18;13(2):106-9
pubmed: 27053832
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017 Feb;25(2):569-577
pubmed: 27549214
Indian J Orthop. 2017 Mar-Apr;51(2):168-173
pubmed: 28400662
J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2018 Apr-Jun;9(2):163-166
pubmed: 29896021
Am J Sports Med. 1993 May-Jun;21(3):338-42
pubmed: 8346744
Am J Sports Med. 1993 Mar-Apr;21(2):249-56
pubmed: 8465921
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1993;1(3-4):226-34
pubmed: 8536037
Am J Sports Med. 1995 Nov-Dec;23(6):690-3
pubmed: 8600736
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1995;3(3):148-56
pubmed: 8821270
Arthroscopy. 1996 Dec;12(6):667-74
pubmed: 9115553
Arthroscopy. 1998 Jan-Feb;14(1):15-22
pubmed: 9486328
J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998 Jun;52(6):377-84
pubmed: 9764259