Hamstrings Neuromuscular Function After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Sherman ◽  
Neal R. Glaviano ◽  
Grant E. Norte
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Neuromuscular Function ◽  
Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Outpatient versus inpatient anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review with meta-analysis

The Knee ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 197-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deisi Ferrari ◽  
Thiago J.A. Lopes ◽  
Paulo F.A. França ◽  
Fábio M. Azevedo ◽  
Evangelos Pappas
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

scholarly journals Is Remnant Preservation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Superior to the Standard Technique? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Han Wang ◽  
Ziming Liu ◽  
Yuwan Li ◽  
Yihang Peng ◽  
Wei Xu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Postoperative Knee

Purpose. This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of current evidence that aims at comparing the clinical outcomes of remnant-preserving anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and standard ACLR. Methods. A systematic review of randomized controlled studies and cohort studies comparing remnant-preserving ACLR with standard ACLR with a minimum level of evidence of II was performed. Studies were included by strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Extracted data were summarized as preoperative conditions, postoperative clinical outcomes, and postoperative complications. When feasible, meta-analysis was performed with RevMan5.3 software. Study methodological quality was evaluated with the modified Coleman methodology score (CMS). Results. Eleven studies (n = 466 remnant-preserving and n = 536 standard) met the inclusion criteria. The mean modified CMS for all included studies was 85.8 (range: 77–92 on a 100-point scale). In total, 466 patients underwent remnant-preserving ACLR by 3 different procedures: standard ACLR plus tibial remnant tensioning (n = 283), selective-bundle augmentation (n = 49), and standard ACLR plus tibial remnant sparing (n = 134). Remnant-preserving ACLR provided a superior outcome of postoperative knee anterior stability (WMD = −0.42, 95% CI, −0.66, −0.17; P<0.01) and Lysholm score (WMD = 2.01, 95% CI, 0.53 to 3.50; P<0.01). There was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to second-look arthroscopy (OR = 1.38, 95% CI, 0.53, 3.62; P=0.51), complications (OR = 1.24 95% CI, 0.76, 2.02; P=0.39), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subject scores, IKDC grades, Lachman test, and pivot-shift test. Summary/conclusion. Remnant-preserving ACLR promotes similar graft synovial coverage and revascularization to standard ACLR. Equivalent or superior postoperative knee stability and clinical scores were observed for remnant-preserving ACLR compared with standard ACLR. No significant difference in the total complication rate between the groups was evident.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document