Optimal Timing of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Patients With Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tear: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Xianyue Shen,Tong Liu,Shenghao Xu,Bo Chen,Xiongfeng Tang,Jianlin Xiao,Yanguo Qin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.42742

2022-11-01

Abstract:Importance: The timing of surgery has been regarded as a key factor in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), and early vs delayed ACLR remains a controversial topic. Objective: To synthesize up-to-date published data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing early vs elective delayed ACLR for patients with ACL deficiency, in terms of clinical outcomes and complications. Data sources: The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched until September 9, 2022. Study selection: All published RCTs comparing clinical and functional outcomes and complications associated with early ACLR vs elective delayed ACLR. Data extraction and synthesis: Two reviewers independently extracted relevant data and assessed the methodological quality following the PRISMA guidelines. Main outcomes and measures: Due to the clinical heterogeneity, the random-effects model was preferred. The primary outcomes were functional outcomes and complications. The Mantel-Haenszel test was used to evaluate dichotomous variables and the inverse variance method was used to assess continuous variables. Results: This meta-analysis included 972 participants in 11 RCTs stratified by follow-up duration. The following factors did not differ between early and delayed ACLR: operative time (mean difference, 4.97; 95% CI, -0.68 to 10.61; P = .08), retear (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.52-4.43; P = .44), and infection (OR, 3.80; 95% CI, 0.77-18.79; P = .10). There were also no differences between groups in range of motion, knee laxity, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC rating scale), and Tegner score. IKDC score (mean difference, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.89-3.66; P < .001), and Lysholm score at 2-year follow-up (mean difference, 2.61; 95% CI, 0.74-4.48; P = .006) significantly differed between early and delayed ACLR. In addition, the timing of surgery was redefined in the included RCTs and subgroup analyses were performed, which validated the robustness of the principal results. Conclusion and relevance: This systematic review and meta-analysis found that early ACLR was not superior to delayed ACLR in terms of most factors analyzed, except for IKDC and Lysholm scores. This information should be available to patients with ACL deficiency and clinicians as part of the shared decision-making process of treatment selection.