Anatomical anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) results in fewer rates of atraumatic graft rupture, and higher rates of rotatory knee stability: a meta-analysis. Issue 6 (16th September 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Eliya, Yousif; Nawar, Khaled; Rothrauff, Benjamin B; Lesniak, Bryson P; Musahl, Volker; de SA, Darren
• Is Part Of: Journal of ISAKOS. Volume 5:Issue 6(2020)
• Page Start: 359
• Page End: 370
• Publication Date: 2020-09-16
• Subjects: anterior cruciate ligament -- arthroscopy -- anatomical location -- autografts; Joints -- Endoscopic surgery -- Periodicals; Osteoarthritis -- Periodicals; Joints -- Diseases -- Periodicals; Total knee replacement -- Periodicals; Sports injuries -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Sports medicine -- Periodicals; 617.472059705
• DOI: 10.1136/jisakos-2020-000476
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2059-7754

Abstract

Abstract : Importance: This review highlights the differences in outcomes between anatomical and non-anatomical anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) techniques. Objective: To compare clinical and functional outcomes between anatomical and non-anatomical ACLR techniques. Evidence review: A search of MEDLINE, Embase and PubMed from 1 January 2000 to 24 October 2019 was conducted. Randomised and prospective primary ACLR studies using autograft and a minimum of 2 years of follow-up were included. The Anatomic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Checklist (AARSC) was used to categorise studies as anatomical. Outcomes analysed included failure rate, knee stability and functional outcomes. A meta-analysis using risk ratio and mean differences was conducted using a random effects model. Findings: Thirty-six studies were included, representing 3710 patients with a follow-up range of 24–300 months. The overall failure rate was 96/1470 (6.5%) and 131/1952 (6.7%) in the anatomical group and non-anatomical group, respectively. The pooled results of the overall failure rate showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the anatomical and the non-anatomical groups (p=0.96). There were 37/60 (61.7%) and 29/67 (43.3%) traumatic failures in the anatomical and non-anatomical groups, respectively. The number of patients with the negative postoperative pivot-shift test was 995/1252 (79.5%) and 1140/1589 (71.1%) in the anatomical and non-anatomical groups, respectively. The pooled results indicated a statistically significant higher number of patients with a positive pivot shift in the non-anatomical group compared with the anatomical group (p=0.03). Conclusions and relevance: This study demonstrated that the overall failure rate was similar between the anatomical and non-anatomical approaches. However, the anatomical ACLR demonstrated a significantly superior restoration of rotatory stability, as evidenced by a higher percentage with a negative postoperative pivot-shift test. Non-anatomical ACLR resulted in higher rates of atraumatic graft ruptures and persistent rotatory knee instability. Surgeons should consider anatomical ACLR when treating rotatory knee stability in patients. Level of evidence: II, systematic review and meta-analysis of level I and II studies.