Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32605641›Full record

SynthesisBMC musculoskeletal disorders2020

Surgical intra- and extra-articular anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis.

Xiangyun Cheng, Fanxiao Liu, Dongsheng Zhou, Alexander C Paulus

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Xiangyun ChengDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University Hospital of Munich, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Campus Großhadern, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Fanxiao LiuDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University Hospital of Munich, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Campus Großhadern, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. woshi631@126.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1412-849X
Dongsheng ZhouDepartment of Orthopaedics, Shandong Provincial Hospital affiliated to Shandong University, No.324, Road Jing Wu Wei Qi, Jinan, 250021, Shandong, China.
Alexander C PaulusDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University Hospital of Munich, Ludwig-Maximilians-University, Campus Großhadern, Marchioninistraße 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEShandong Provincial Hospital · CNShandong University · CN

Funding

China Sponsorship Council 201708140085China Sponsorship Council 201808080126
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is still controversial whether the combination of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and extra-articular reconstruction (EAR) have good clinical efficacy. This meta-analysis aims systematically to compare the clinical effectiveness of ACL reconstruction and combined reconstruction.

methodsElectronic databases, including Medline/PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library, were systematically searched to identify targeted studies. A meta-analysis were performed to pool the outcome estimates of interest, such as the Lysholm, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Tegner scores and the results from the KT-1000/2000 arthrometer test, the Lachman test and the pivot shift test.

resultsTwelve studies involving 1146 knees were identified. Compared with single ACL reconstruction, combined reconstruction had better results for a pivot shift of grade 1 (relative ratio [RR] = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.83-0.94) and grade 2 (RR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.91-0.99) rather than grade 3 (RR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.90-1.06) and no statistically significant difference for both Lachman grade 1 (RR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.89-1.05) and grade 2 (RR = 0.96, 95% CI: 0.90-1.03). Combined reconstruction resulted in significant improvements on the instrumented joint laxity test when considering a failure standard of more than 5 mm (a side-to-side arthrometric difference) (RR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.89-0.98) rather than 3 mm (RR = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.86-1.03). Moreover, combined reconstruction increased the IKDC score at the 12-month (weighted mean difference [WMD] = - 6.38, 95% CI: - 9.66 to - 3.10), 24-month (WMD = - 5.60, 95% CI: - 8.54 to - 2.66) and 36-month follow-ups (WMD = - 4.71, 95% CI: - 7.59 to - 1.83) and the Tegner score at the 36-month follow-up (WMD = - 0.53, 95% CI: - 0.97 to - 0.09), but it did not increase the Lysholm score at the 36-month follow-up (WMD = - 0.84, 95% CI: - 2.02 to 0.34).

conclusionWith the advances in reconstruction techniques, combined reconstructions were found to be effective in improving rotational stability and to lead to good functional scores. However, obviously, the combined reconstruction technique is more time-consuming and requires an additional incision, which is not suitable for all ACL-deficient patients. Therefore, programs should be personalized and customized for the specific situation of each patient.

Indexed as

Anterior Cruciate LigamentAnterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesAnterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionHumansJoint InstabilityKnee InjuriesKnee JointRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRecovery of FunctionRisk FactorsTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeAnterior cruciate ligament reconstructionClinical outcomesExtra-articular procedureLaxity measurementsPivot shift

Identifiers

PMID32605641
PMCPMC7325370
OpenAlexW3040405841

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.