Copyright
©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Orthop. Jul 18, 2022; 13(7): 662-675
Published online Jul 18, 2022. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v13.i7.662
Published online Jul 18, 2022. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v13.i7.662
Table 1 Critical appraisal of randomised control trials, using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist for randomised control trials, n = 10
Ref. | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4a | Q4b | Q4c | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | Q10 | Q11 |
Chiba et al[23] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
Getgood et al[12] | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Hamido et al[39] | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Ibrahim et al[40] | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
Mogoş et al[24] | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Porter et al[41] | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Sonnery-Cottet et al[25] | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Stensbirk et al[42] | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Trichine et al[43] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Vadalà et al[44] | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Table 2 Critical appraisal of cohort studies, using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist for cohort studies, n = 13: Questions 7, 8 and 12 were left out of the table due to the fact they are not yes/no questions
Ref. | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5a | Q5b | Q6a | Q6b | Q9 | Q10 | Q11 |
Ahn et al[45] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Can’t tell | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Dejour et al[46] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Can’t tell | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Erden et al[47] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Ferretti et al[33] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Giraud et al[48] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Can’t tell | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Goncharov et al[49] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Lee et al[50] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Can’t tell | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Mahmoud et al[11] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Rowan et al[51] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Sonnery-Cottet et al[52] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Sonnery-Cottet et al[53] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Sonnery-Cottet et al[36] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Ventura et al[54] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Can’t tell | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Table 3 Characteristics of the studies included in the review, n = 24
Study characteristic | n(%) |
Study design | |
Randomised controlled trial | 10 (42) |
Prospective cohort study | 5 (21) |
Retrospective cohort study | 6 (25) |
Matched cohort study | 2 (8) |
Case control study | 1 (4) |
Country of origin | |
France | 6 (25) |
Italy | 4 (17) |
Australia | 2 (8) |
South Korea | 2 (8) |
United States | 1 (4) |
Kuwait | 2 (8) |
Turkey | 1 (4) |
United Kingdom | 1 (4) |
Brazil | 1 (4) |
Russia | 1 (4) |
Canada | 1 (4) |
Denmark | 1 (4) |
Algeria | 1 (4) |
Year published | |
2006 | 1 (4) |
2012 | 1 (4) |
2013 | 1 (4) |
2014 | 2 (8) |
2016 | 1 (4) |
2017 | 2 (8) |
2018 | 1 (8) |
2019 | 4 (17) |
2020 | 4 (17) |
2021 | 7 (29) |
Number of patients | |
< 50 | 2 (8) |
50-100 | 10 (42) |
100-250 | 8 (33) |
250-500 | 2 (8) |
> 500 | 2 (8) |
Mean follow-up time | |
1-12 mo | 2 (8) |
13 -24 mo | 6 (25) |
25-36 mo | 4 (17) |
37-60 mo | 7 (29) |
61-120 mo | 4 (17) |
> 120 mo | 1 (4) |
Type of AEAP | |
LET | 13 (54) |
ALLR | 11 (46) |
Table 4 Main characteristics of studies included in this systematic review, n = 24
Ref. | Design of study | AEAP used | Number of patients involved | Mean follow up | Outcome measures used | Technique favoured |
Ahn et al[45] | Retrospective cohort study | LET | 171 | 49.7 ± 5.7 mo | IKDC, KL grade, graft maturation score and revision rates | ACLR with LET favoured over ACLR alone |
Chiba et al[23] | RCT | LET | 18 | 12 mo | Anterior tibial translation, KOOS, tibial rotation relative to the femur | ACLR with LET is not superior to ACLR alone |
Dejour et al[46] | Prospective cohort study | LET | 75 | 25 mo | Anterior tibial translation, IKDC, pivot shift grading | ACLR with LET favoured over ACLR alone |
Erden et al[47] | Retrospective cohort study | ALLR | 63 | 24 mo | Cincinnati knee score, IKDC, Lysholm scores, graft rupture rate, anterior tibial translation, pivot shift test | ACLR with ALLR is not superior to ACLR alone |
Ferretti et al[33] | Retrospective cohort study | LET | 140 | 120 mo | Lysholm score, IKDC, Tegner score, anterior tibial translation | ACLR with LET favoured over ACLR alone |
Getgood et al[12] | RCT | LET | 618 | 24 mo | P4, KOOS, Marx Activity Rating scale, IKDC, ACL QOL | ACLR with LET favoured over ACLR alone |
Giraud et al[48] | Prospective cohort study | LET | 63 | 84 mo | IKDC, anterior tibial translation, radiological medial and lateral compartment laxity | ACLR with LET is not superior to ACLR alone |
Goncharov et al[49] | Prospective cohort study | ALLR | 50 | 24 mo | Tegner Lysholm score, IKDC, Lachmann test, Pivot shift test | ACLR with ALLR is not superior to ACLR alone |
Hamido et al[39] | RCT | ALLR | 107 | 60 mo | IKDC, anterior tibial translation, Tegner score, Lysholm score | ACLR with ALLR favoured over ACLR alone |
Helito et al[55] | Case control study | ALLR | 90 | 29.6 ± 6.2 mo for group 1; 28.1 ± mo for group 2 | Anterior tibial translation, IKDC, Lysholm, Tegner score Pivot shift test, rupture rates | ACLR with ALLR favoured over ACLR alone |
Ibrahim et al[40] | RCT | ALLR | 103 | 27 mo | Anterior tibial translation, IKDC, Lysholm score, Tegner score, Pivot shift test | ACLR with ALLR is not superior to ACLR alone |
Lee et al[50] | Retrospective cohort study | ALLR | 87 | 36 mo | ACL-RSI, Anterior tibial translation, IKDC, Lysholm score, Tegner score | ACLR with ALLR is not superior to ACLR alone |
Mahmoud et al[11] | Matched cohort study | LET | 144 | 120 mo | IKDC, Lysholm score, OKS, Tegner score | ACLR with LET favoured over ACLR alone |
Mogoş et al[24] | RCT | ALLR | 57 | 12 mo | IKDC, Lysholm score, Pivot shift test, Rolimeter test, Tegner score | ACLR with ALLR favoured over ACLR alone |
Porter et al[41] | RCT | LET | 55 | 24 mo | IKDC, Lysholm score, KOOS, Tegner score | ACLR with LET favoured over ACLR alone |
Rowan et al[51] | Prospective cohort study | LET | 273 | 52 mo | Lysholm score, Tegner score | ACLR with LET favoured over ACLR alone |
Sonnery-Cottet et al[52] | Prospective cohort study | ALLR | 502 | 38.4 ± 8.5 mo | IKDC, Lysholm score, Side to side laxity, Tegner score | ACLR with ALLR favoured over ACLR alone |
Sonnery-Cottet et al[53] | Retrospective cohort study | ALLR | 383 | 37.4 mo | Lysholm score, Side to side laxity, Tegner score | ACLR with ALLR favoured over ACLR alone |
Sonnery-Cottet et al[25] | RCT | ALLR | 224 | 12.3 ± 1.9 mo | IKDC, Lysholm score, KOOS, Range of motion, Tegner score | ACLR with ALLR favoured over ACLR alone |
Sonnery-Cottet et al[36] | Matched cohort study | ALLR | 172 | 104.33 ± 3.74 mo | IKDC, Lysholm score, KOOS, Side to side laxity, Tegner score | ACLR with ALLR favoured over ACLR alone |
Stensbirk et al[42] | RCT | LET | 60 | 180 mo | AKP questionnaire, Lysholm score, Tegner score | ACLR with LET is not superior to ACLR alone |
Trichine et al[43] | Single blinded RCT | LET | 120 | 24 mo | IKDC, Objective laxity | Inconclusive |
Vadalà et al[44] | RCT | LET | 60 | 44.6 mo | Anterior tibial translation, IKDC, Lysholm score, Tegner score, VAS | ACLR with LET favoured over ACLR only |
Ventura et al[54] | Retrospective cohort study | LET | 24 | 54 mo | Anterior tibial translation, IKDC, Lysholm score, Tegner score | ACLR with LET favoured over ACLR alone |
- Citation: Agarwal N, Monketh J, Volpin A. Clinical and mechanical outcomes in isolated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction vs additional lateral extra-articular tenodesis or anterolateral ligament reconstruction. World J Orthop 2022; 13(7): 662-675
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2218-5836/full/v13/i7/662.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v13.i7.662