Optimal Timing of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Patients With Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tear
Open Access
- 17 November 2022
- journal article
- review article
- Published by American Medical Association (AMA) in JAMA Network Open
- Vol. 5 (11) , e2242742
Abstract
Importance: The timing of surgery has been regarded as a key factor in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), and early vs delayed ACLR remains a controversial topic.Objective: To synthesize up-to-date published data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing early vs elective delayed ACLR for patients with ACL deficiency, in terms of clinical outcomes and complications.Data Sources: The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched until September 9, 2022.Study Selection: All published RCTs comparing clinical and functional outcomes and complications associated with early ACLR vs elective delayed ACLR.Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently extracted relevant data and assessed the methodological quality following the PRISMA guidelines.Main Outcomes and Measures: Due to the clinical heterogeneity, the random-effects model was preferred. The primary outcomes were functional outcomes and complications. The Mantel-Haenszel test was used to evaluate dichotomous variables and the inverse variance method was used to assess continuous variables.Results: This meta-analysis included 972 participants in 11 RCTs stratified by follow-up duration. The following factors did not differ between early and delayed ACLR: operative time (mean difference, 4.97; 95% CI, −0.68 to 10.61; P = .08), retear (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.52-4.43; P = .44), and infection (OR, 3.80; 95% CI, 0.77-18.79; P = .10). There were also no differences between groups in range of motion, knee laxity, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC rating scale), and Tegner score. IKDC score (mean difference, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.89-3.66; P < .001), and Lysholm score at 2-year follow-up (mean difference, 2.61; 95% CI, 0.74-4.48; P = .006) significantly differed between early and delayed ACLR. In addition, the timing of surgery was redefined in the included RCTs and subgroup analyses were performed, which validated the robustness of the principal results.Conclusion and Relevance: This systematic review and meta-analysis found that early ACLR was not superior to delayed ACLR in terms of most factors analyzed, except for IKDC and Lysholm scores. This information should be available to patients with ACL deficiency and clinicians as part of the shared decision-making process of treatment selection.Keywords
This publication has 47 references indexed in Scilit:
- Treatment for acute anterior cruciate ligament tear: five year outcome of randomised trialBMJ, 2013
- A Randomized Trial of Treatment for Acute Anterior Cruciate Ligament TearsNew England Journal of Medicine, 2010
- Quality of Life and Clinical Outcome After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Patellar Tendon Graft or Quadrupled Semitendinosus GraftThe American Journal of Sports Medicine, 2010
- A comparison of early and delayed arthroscopically-assisted reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament using hamstring autograftThe Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume, 2010
- Postoperative Range of Motion following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Autograft HamstringsThe American Journal of Sports Medicine, 2008
- Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligamentThe Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume, 2005
- Treatment of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries, Part IThe American Journal of Sports Medicine, 2005
- Outcome after reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament in athletic patientsThe Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume, 2003
- A Comparison of Results in Acute and Chronic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Ruptures of Arthroscopically Assisted Autogenous Patellar Tendon ReconstructionThe American Journal of Sports Medicine, 1997
- Limitation of motion following anterior cruciate ligament reconstructionThe American Journal of Sports Medicine, 1991