Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34383156›Full record

ReviewJournal of experimental orthopaedics2021

Clinical outcomes of contemporary lateral augmentation techniques in primary ACL reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Lucas Beckers, Thiago Vivacqua, Andrew D Firth, Alan M J Getgood

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. 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 1 institution in 1 country.

Lucas Beckers *Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Fowler Kennedy Sport Medicine Clinic, University of Western Ontario, 3M Centre, 1151 Richmond Street, London, ON, N6A 3K7, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0307-8941
Thiago Vivacqua *Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Fowler Kennedy Sport Medicine Clinic, University of Western Ontario, 3M Centre, 1151 Richmond Street, London, ON, N6A 3K7, Canada.
Andrew D FirthHealth and Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Western Ontario, 3M Centre, 1151 Richmond Street, London, ON, N6A 3K7, Canada.
Alan M J GetgoodDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Fowler Kennedy Sport Medicine Clinic, University of Western Ontario, 3M Centre, 1151 Richmond Street, London, ON, N6A 3K7, Canada. agetgood@uwo.ca.
Western University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this investigation was to systematically review the contemporary literature to determine if a lateral augmentation (LA) added to an Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction (ACLR) provides better clinical and patient reported outcomes compared to an isolated ACLR.

methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) criteria. Two authors independently conducted an electronic search using MEDLINE® and Embase® on February 6

resultsA total of 11 studies that reported on a combined total of 1892 unique patients were eligible for data extraction, including five RCTs and six prospective cohort studies. In 6 studies, an Anterolateral Ligament reconstruction (ALLR) was the LA of choice, while the 5 other publications used different types of Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis (LET). A significant reduction in graft ruptures was found in patients treated with ACLR + LA (3%) compared to isolated ACLR (12%). Rotational laxity was significantly higher in isolated ACLR (14%) compared to ACLR + LA (6%). Addition of a LA reduced anterior translation when assessed via instrumented laxity testing. No significant difference was found in the patient reported outcome scores (IKDC and Tegner) between both patient groups, except for the Lysholm Score which was significant in favour of the ACLR + LA group.

conclusionCombination of a primary ACLR with a LA can significantly reduce the risk of graft rupture and provide better rotatory stability, without jeopardizing patient reported outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Systematic Review of Level I, II and III studies.

Indexed as

ACLAnterior cruciate ligament reconstructionAnterolateral ligamentLateral extra-articular tenodesisMeta-analysisPivot ShiftRotational instabilitySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34383156
PMCPMC8360253
OpenAlexW3192050375

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.