ReviewJournal of orthopaedics
Selective bundle versus complete anterior-cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of orthopaedics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Is remnant preservation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction superior to the standard technique? An overview of systematic reviews.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Review
- Is augmentation the best solution in partial anterior cruciate ligament tears? A literature systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedics · 2023Review
- Blood Flow Restriction Training preserves knee flexion and extension torque following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review.Journal of orthopaedicsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Selective bundle reconstruction (SLB) refers to preservation of the intact bundle and reconstruction of the ruptured bundle in a partial tear while complete ACL reconstruction involves the removal of all remnant tissue and reconstruction of one or both bundles. As the evidence for SLB versus complete ACL reconstruction remains unclear, this study aimed to compare the two techniques. This study's hypothesis was that SLB reconstruction allows better function and stability compared to complete ACL reconstruction. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and Cochrane Library was conducted, identifying studies that compared SLB ('selective' group) versus complete ('complete' group) ACL reconstruction. Meta-analysis was conducted for post-operative functional scores, stability outcomes and complications as well as pre-operative to post-operative change. Results: Eleven studies were included in the meta-analysis, with 1107 patients and a pooled mean follow-up of 29.5 months. Post-operatively, the Selective group had significantly reduced anterior laxity, shown by a lower mean arthrometry side-to-side difference (p<0.01). Analysis of change results showed that the Selective group had a lower mean improvement in arthrometry side-to-side difference as well (p<0.01). No significant difference was shown for all other post-operative outcomes. Conclusion: This study provides valuable insight to the management of partial tears. It has demonstrated that the preservation of the intact bundle offers stability and function that is as good as complete reconstruction and that SLB is a potentially viable option in the management of partial tears. Level of evidence: Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.