Skip to main content
. 2011 Sep 7;2011(9):CD005960. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005960.pub2

Aglietti 1994

Methods Treatment allocation by alternating Non blinded assessment Mean follow‐up: 28 months (1994 publication); 5.7 years (1997 publication) Loss to follow‐up: 3 (excluded from analysis) Graft re‐ruptures: not reported
Participants Italy 63 participants with chronic (> 6 months), isolated unilateral ACL tears Group allocation data for 60 participants. PT: n = 30, mean 21.5 years (14 to 33 years), 16 males / 14 females HT: n = 30, mean 23.7 years (14 to 36 years), 20 males / 10 females
Interventions Arthroscopic ACL reconstruction with: 1. Patellar tendon (number of incisions not specified; 20 mm bone blocks, proximal fixation ‐ sutures, cortical bone screw, washer; tibial fixation ‐ interference screw, sutures and cortical bone screw) versus 2. Hamstring tendon: doubled semitendinosus/gracilis tendon (4 strands; number of incisions not specified; proximal fixation ‐ cortical bone screw, washer; tibial fixation ‐ staple, sutures and cortical bone screw (in 24 cases), or sutures, screw and washer (in 6 cases))
Outcomes Mean 28 months follow‐up for: Subjective evaluation, symptoms, range of motion, joint stability; extension loss; flexion loss; static stability with KT‐2000 (15 lb, 20 lb, 30 lb); muscle strength with Cybex II (60, 120, 180 deg/sec); level of activity (based on function, intensity, and return to sport); objective stability; patellofemoral symptoms; pivot shift (absent/glide/jerk/subluxation)
Notes No additional methodological information or individual patient data were received from the authors.
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) High risk Alternating patients.
Allocation concealment (selection bias) High risk
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes High risk
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes High risk Three patients lost to follow‐up not accounted for in analysis.
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk Did not report re‐ruptures, contralateral ruptures or withdrawals.
Other bias Unclear risk Unclear