Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Patients Older Than 50 Years: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

backgroundThere is no consensus regarding the best treatment approach for middle-aged patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. Chronic ACL-deficient knees are often associated with instability as well as secondary meniscal and cartilage lesions. ACL reconstruction (ACLR) has achieved satisfactory outcomes in younger patients; however, the effectiveness and safety of ACLR in middle-aged patients remain uncertain. PURPOSE: To compare the patient-reported functional scores, arthrometric outcomes, and complications of primary ACLR between older (≥50 years) and younger (<50 years) patients. STUDY

designSystematic review; Level of evidence, 3.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review of cohort studies that compared the clinical outcomes of ACLR between patients aged ≥50 years and those aged <50 years. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and MEDLINE databases were searched for relevant studies. The Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria was used to assess the risk of bias and conducted a random-effects meta-analysis to combine the data, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to evaluate the overall quality of the body of retrieved evidence. The primary outcome was knee functional outcomes, and secondary outcomes were arthrometric outcomes of ACLR and complications.

resultsThis study included 4 retrospective cohort studies with a total of 287 participants (129 in the older group and 158 in the younger group). All included studies reported significant improvements in clinical outcomes in both groups after ACLR. No significant differences were noted in the improvement of International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores (mean difference [MD], 0.20 [95% CI, -2.65 to 3.05];

conclusionACLR may be performed in middle-aged patients (≥50 years) without concern for inferior clinical and arthrometric results compared with younger patients (<50 years).