Efficacy of Repair for ACL Injury: A Metaâ analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

15Citations
Citations of this article
29Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

We aim to compare the curative effect of primary repair for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury with reconstruction and provide the reliable evidence for its clinical application. The literatures were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Springer, and other medical literature databases published between January 1970 and June 2021. Basic characteristics, surgery technique, clinical outcome scores and physical examination results were recorded and evaluated. Seven randomized controlled trials (RCT) were eligible for inclusion. The results showed that there were no statistically significant differences between arthroscopic ACL repair and ACL reconstruction for Tegner, Lysholm, Lachman, KT-1000, range of motion (ROM), functional outcomes and reoperation rate (P>0.05), even the result of IKDC scores showed that arthroscopic repair was better than reconstruction (P=0.04). However, through the subgroup analysis, it was found that the short-Term follow-up results of arthroscopic ACL repair were indeed better than those of open ACL repair. Therefore, we can assume that the arthroscopic ACL repair technique is an optional and promising surgical method to treat ACL injury.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Li, Z. (2022, December 1). Efficacy of Repair for ACL Injury: A Metaâ analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. International Journal of Sports Medicine. Georg Thieme Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1755-4925

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free