Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31486914›Full record

SynthesisKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2020

Arthroscopic primary repair of proximal anterior cruciate ligament tears seems safe but higher level of evidence is needed: a systematic review and meta-analysis of recent literature.

Jelle P van der List, Harmen D Vermeijden, Inger N Sierevelt, Gregory S DiFelice, Arthur van Noort, Gino M M J Kerkhoffs

Erratum issuedAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 54 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

54 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Reliability of Preoperative MRI in the Prediction of ACL Tear Type.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jelle P van der ListDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Spaarne Gasthuis Hospital, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands. jpjvanderlistmd@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7940-5152
Harmen D VermeijdenDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Spaarne Gasthuis Hospital, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands.
Inger N SiereveltDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Spaarne Gasthuis Hospital, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands.
Gregory S DiFeliceHospital for Special Surgery, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, New York, USA.
Arthur van NoortDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Spaarne Gasthuis Hospital, Hoofddorp, The Netherlands.
Gino M M J KerkhoffsAmsterdam UMC, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess the outcomes of the various techniques of primary repair of proximal anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears in the recent literature using a systematic review with meta-analysis.

methodsPRISMA guidelines were followed. All studies reporting outcomes of arthroscopic primary repair of proximal ACL tears using primary repair, repair with static (suture) augmentation and dynamic augmentation between January 2014 and July 2019 in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane were identified and included. Primary outcomes were failure rates and reoperation rates, and secondary outcomes were patient-reported outcome scores.

resultsA total of 13 studies and 1,101 patients (mean age 31 years, mean follow-up 2.1 years, 60% male) were included. Nearly all studies were retrospective studies without a control group and only one randomized study was identified. Grade of recommendation for primary repair was weak. There were 9 out of 74 failures following primary repair (10%), 6 out of 69 following repair with static augmentation (7%) and 106 out of 958 following dynamic augmentation (11%). Repair with dynamic augmentation had more reoperations (99; 10%), and more hardware removal (255; 29%) compared to the other procedures. All functional outcome scores were > 85% of maximum scores.

conclusionsThis systematic review with meta-analysis found that the different techniques of primary repair are safe with failure rates of 7-11%, no complications and functional outcome scores of > 85% of maximum scores. There was a high risk of bias and follow-up was short with 2.1 years. Prospective studies comparing the outcomes to ACL reconstruction with sufficient follow-up are needed prior to widespread implementation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Indexed as

AdultAnterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesAnterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresPatient SafetyProspective StudiesReoperationRetrospective StudiesSecond-Look SurgeryTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID31486914
PMCPMC7253375

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.