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

Abstract Purpose The 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. Methods A 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 6th, 2021 for level I-III randomized controlled trials (RCT) and prospective cohort studies without randomization, published after 2012 and with a minimum of two year follow-up. Publications were included when they reported on the objective knee stability examination, patient reported outcome scores, return to sports or graft rupture rate of any type of primary, isolated ACLR compared to ACLR combined with any type of LA. Results A 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. Conclusion Combination 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.

Download Full-text

Generic Patient-Reported Outcomes and Outcome Measures: A Systematic Review Study Protocol

10.1101/2021.05.28.21257980 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Yuki Seidler ◽

Erika Mosor ◽

Margaret R Andrews ◽

Carolina Watson ◽

Nick Bott ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Outcome Measures ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Patient Reported Outcomes ◽

Outcome Measurement ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Patient Reported Outcome ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Screening Process ◽

Patient Reported

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are an essential part of health outcome measurement and vital to patient-centricity and valued-based care. Several international consortia have developed core outcome sets and many of them include PROs. PROs are measured by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). PROs and PROMs can be generic or specific to certain diseases or conditions. While the characteristics of generic PROs and PROMs are well recognised as widely relevant and applicable across different domains, diseases and conditions, there is a lack of knowledge on the types of PROs measured by generic PROMs. We also do not know in which disease areas generic PROs and PROMs are commonly used. To date, there has been no systematic review solely focusing on generic PROMs, what they measure and their areas of application. Objectives: This systematic review will identify core PROs measured by generic PROMs used in adult populations and the areas in which they are applied. Methods: We will conduct a systematic review of reviews. The screening process and the reporting will comply with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) 2020 Statement. We will use four databases, Medline [PubMed], CINHAL [Ebsco], Cochrane [Cochrane Library], and PsycINFO [Ovid], and reports from international consortia. Inclusion criteria are systematic reviews, meta-analysis or patient-reported outcome sets developed by international consortia reporting on generic PROMs in adult populations. Articles primarily focusing on patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), children or adolescents, or those not written in English will be excluded. Risk of bias will be assessed by checking if the included articles comply with established guidelines for systematic reviews such as the PRISMA statement. We will extract generic PROMs and PROs measured by these PROMs, and the areas applied from the selected articles and reports. Extracted data and information will be quantitatively and qualitatively synthesised without statistical interference. The quality of the synthesised evidences will be assessed by clarifying the strengths, limitations and possible biases in our review.

Download Full-text

Graft Choice in Isolated Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis of Rates of Recurrent Instability and Patient-Reported Outcomes for Autograft, Allograft, and Synthetic Options

Arthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery ◽

10.1016/j.arthro.2017.11.027 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 34 (4) ◽

pp. 1340-1354 ◽

Cited By ~ 33

Author(s):

Ryan J. McNeilan ◽

Joshua S. Everhart ◽

Patrick K. Mescher ◽

Moneer Abouljoud ◽

Robert A. Magnussen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Patient Reported Outcomes ◽

Ligament Reconstruction ◽

Medial Patellofemoral Ligament ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction ◽

Recurrent Instability ◽

Graft Choice ◽

Patient Reported

Download Full-text

Patient-reported outcome measures and clinical assessment of implant-supported overdentures and fixed prostheses in mandibular edentulous patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry ◽

10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.11.005 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Guilherme Almeida Borges ◽

Thaís Barbin ◽

Caroline Dini ◽

Lucianne Cople Maia ◽

Marcela Baraúna Magno ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Outcome Measures ◽

Clinical Assessment ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽

Patient Reported Outcome ◽

Patient Reported ◽

Edentulous Patients

Download Full-text

Correction to: Robotic‑arm assisted total knee arthroplasty is associated with improved accuracy and patient reported outcomes: a systematic review and meta‑analysis

Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy ◽

10.1007/s00167-021-06522-x ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Junren Zhang ◽

Wofhatwa Solomon Ndou ◽

Nathan Ng ◽

Paul Gaston ◽

Philip M. Simpson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Total Knee Arthroplasty ◽

Knee Arthroplasty ◽

Patient Reported Outcomes ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Robotic Arm ◽

Patient Reported ◽

Total Knee ◽

Improved Accuracy

A correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06522-x

Download Full-text

AB0116 THE EFFECTS OF DISEASE MODIFYING ANTI-RHEUMATIC DRUGS ON PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES; PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND NETWORK META-ANALYSIS

Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases ◽

10.1136/annrheumdis-2021-eular.1578 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽

pp. 1087.1-1087

Author(s):

M. Van den Dikkenberg, Msc ◽

N. Luurssen-Masurel ◽

M. Kuijper ◽

M. R. Kok ◽

P. De Jong ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Patient Reported Outcomes ◽

Treatment Effects ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Activity Limitations ◽

Definitive Answer ◽

Preliminary Results ◽

Patient Reported ◽

Standard Set ◽

Disease Modifying

Background:The need to involve patient reported outcomes (PROs) in the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) increases, since PROs quantify patient relevant outcomes. Although PROs have been incorporated in the core-outcome sets in clinical trials, knowledge about the treatment effects on these PROs is scarce. Therefore, we performed a systematic review on the effects of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs), of any type, on relevant PRO domains mentioned in the ICHOM standard set. This might support rheumatologists and RA patients during treatment decisions.Objectives:To get insight in the treatment effects of DMARDs of any type on three PRO domains that matter to patients (pain, activity limitations and fatigue).Methods:A systematic review was performed in Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane and Google Scholar. Included were all studies that were published before August 2019 and showed DMARD treatment effects in RA on PROs that are part of the ICHOM standard set. Three Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed for the PRO domains pain, activity limitations and fatigue. Preliminary results of DMARDs (in)directly compared to placebo were visualized by forest plots using R.Results:The search strategy yielded n=5974 articles. After selection was performed by 2 independent researchers, n=70 individual articles representing n=53 studies were extracted, over the three PRO domains; pain (n=31), activity limitations (n=41) and fatigue (n=21). In all RCTs, PROs were only reported as secondary or tertiary endpoints. In figure 1, we show the effects on PROs for any type of DMARD investigated compared to placebo. Overall, DMARDs show a greater reduction in pain (standardized mean difference (SMD); -0.97 – -0.22) and most of them in activity limitations (SMD; -0.81 – 0.56). In fatigue, this clear direction is lacking (SMD; -0.86 – 3.5). csDMARDs and anti-TNF seem to perform slightly, but nog significantly, worse than other bDMARDs and tsDMARDs in the first two domains.Conclusion:Within in this systematic review we report a reduction for DMARDs of any type on the domains of pain and activity limitations compared to placebo. However, results are still preliminary and should be interpreted with care. A more comprehensive network analysis might give a more definitive answer which DMARD performs best.Figure 1.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

Download Full-text

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Endoscopic Appearance of Ulcerative Colitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology ◽

10.1016/j.cgh.2018.06.015 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 17 (3) ◽

pp. 411-418.e3 ◽

Cited By ~ 17

Author(s):

Neeraj Narula ◽

Abdul-Aziz Alshahrani ◽

Yuhong Yuan ◽

Walter Reinisch ◽

Jean-Frederic Colombel

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Ulcerative Colitis ◽

Patient Reported Outcomes ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Endoscopic Appearance ◽

Patient Reported

Download Full-text

The effectiveness of robotic hip and knee arthroplasty on patient-reported outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

International Orthopaedics ◽

10.1007/s00264-018-4140-3 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 43 (6) ◽

pp. 1283-1295 ◽

Cited By ~ 14

Author(s):

Sascha Karunaratne ◽

Michael Duan ◽

Evangelos Pappas ◽

Brett Fritsch ◽

Richard Boyle ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Knee Arthroplasty ◽

Patient Reported Outcomes ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Patient Reported ◽

Hip And Knee Arthroplasty

Download Full-text

Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Total Knee Replacement in Patients <65 Years of Age—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Journal of Clinical Medicine ◽

10.3390/jcm9103150 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 9 (10) ◽

pp. 3150

Author(s):

Jason Trieu ◽

Daniel J. Gould ◽

Chris Schilling ◽

Tim Spelman ◽

Michelle M. Dowsey ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Quality Of Life ◽

Systematic Review ◽

Patient Reported Outcomes ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Functional Decline ◽

Older Individuals ◽

Patient Reported ◽

Related Quality ◽

Total Knee

An increasing number of total knee replacements (TKRs) are being performed in response to the growing burden of osteoarthritis. Patients <65 years of age represent the fastest growing group of TKR recipients and are expected to account for an increasing number of primary and revision procedures. Concerns have been raised about the outcomes that can be expected by this age demographic who are more active, physically demanding, and have longer life expectancies compared to older TKR recipients. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of TKR for osteoarthritis in patients <65 years of age, compared to older individuals. A systematic search of Embase and Medline was conducted to identify studies which examined patient-reported outcomes measured using disease-specific and generic health-related quality of life instruments. Ten studies met our inclusion criteria and were included in this review. These studies comprised 1747 TKRs performed between 1977 and 2014. In the meta-analysis of two prospective studies (288 TKRs), patients <65 years of age were able to attain large and clinically meaningful improvements in pain, function, and quality of life. One of these studies (61 TKRs) suggested that patients <55 years of age attained a larger degree of improvement compared to older individuals. Results into the second postoperative decade were less certain, with some data suggesting a high prevalence of pain and patterns of functional decline. Further research is required to investigate longer-term outcomes following TKR for osteoarthritis in younger patients.

Download Full-text