Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36117844›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in surgery2022

Effects of remnant preservation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Huanyu Xie, Zicai Fu, Mingjin Zhong, Zhenhan Deng, Chen Wang, Yijia Sun, Weimin Zhu

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. 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

7 authors.

Huanyu XieHealth Science Center, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China.
Zicai FuHealth Science Center, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China.
Mingjin ZhongDepartment of Sports Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen Second People's Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Zhenhan DengDepartment of Sports Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen Second People's Hospital, Shenzhen, China.
Chen WangHealth Science Center, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China.
Yijia SunHealth Science Center, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China.
Weimin ZhuDepartment of Sports Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Shenzhen University, Shenzhen Second People's Hospital, Shenzhen, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Compared with standard anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, it is controversial whether anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with remnant preservation can lead to better clinical outcomes. We conducted a systematic study and meta-analysis to assess the differences in clinical efficacy between the two. Method: We searched for clinical randomized controlled studies and cohort studies included in the Cochrane library, PubMed, and Embase from March 2012 to March 2022 in English. The included studies were ACLR with or without remant preservation, and the data were extracted and the quality of the included studies was assessed by two authors, respectively. Revman 5.4 was used for statistical analysis and conclusions were presented. Result: Ten articles containing a total of 777 patients were finally included. There was no significant difference in postoperative Lachman test [OR = 1.66, 95%CI (0.79, 3.49), Conclusion: This meta-analysis concluded that remnant preservation significantly had better results in terms of patient functional score (Lysholm, IKDC), knee stability (Pivot shift test, postoperative side-to-side anterior laxity) and tibial tunnel enlargement. In terms of complications (incidence of Cyclops lesions, range of motion, re-injury rate), no significant differences were seen between the two groups. Although many studies concluded that remnant preservation could bring better synovial coverage, this meta-analysis indicated that there is insufficient evidence to support it, possibly due to different remnant preservation procedures.The potential risks associated with longer operation times are also worth considering.

Indexed as

anterior cruciate ligamentanterior cruciate ligament reconstructionmeta-analysisremnant preservationsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36117844
PMCPMC9475141

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.