Preserving-remnantversusremoving-remnant for arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction：aMeta-analysis

Zhang Lei; Xie Chong-xin; Bai Jing-ping

doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2016.20.019

Abstract：BACKGROUND:There are controversies about preserving the remnant in the anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction procedure because of its uncertain therapeutic effects. <br> OBJECTIVE:Tocompare the efficacy and safety of preserving-remnant with removing-remnant for arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a meta-analysis. <br> METHODS:A computer-based online search was conducted in PubMed,Embase,the Cochrane Library, CDSR, CBM, and CNKI databases by using the English key wordsof “anterior cruciate ligamentAND remnant (OR stump)ANDrandomized controled trial (RCT)ORquasi-RCT” and the Chinese key words of“anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, preserving-remnant, removing-remnant” to screen the relevant articles publishedfrom 1995 to July 2015. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3 software. <br> RESULTS AND CONCLUSION:A total of 13 randomized controled trials were included. The meta-analysis resultsshowed that there were no statisticaly significant differences in KT1000/2000 scores (OR=-0.28, 95%CI:-0.76-0.20,P=0.25), the good rate of synoveal coverage (OR=-0.30, 95%CI:-0.30-0.90,P=0.32), and the incidence of cyclops leions (OR=0.87,95%CI: 0.63-2.90,P=0.44). Postoperative Lysholm scores (OR=2.45, 95%CI: 0.52-4.39,P=0.01), proprioceptive function (OR=-1.72, 95%CI:-3.32 to 0.13,P=0.03), tunnel enlargement (OR=-0.66, 95%CI:-1.08 to-0.23,P=0.002) in preserving-remnant were superior to removing-remnant for arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. These results suggest that both preserving-remnantandremoving-remnant for arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstructioncanobtain satisfactory antero-posterior stability of the knee. Preserving-remnant exhibits superiority in post-operative scores of the knee, proprioceptive function, tunnel enlargement.Furtherhigh-quality randomized controled trials are warranted because of some low-quality studies and the existing biases.