Table 5.
Summary of findings table.
| Arthroscopic ACL repair for ACL ruptures | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Patient or population: patients with ACL ruptures Settings: in skeletally mature patients Intervention: arthroscopic ACL repair Comparison: autograft ACL reconstruction | ||||||
| Outcomes |
Illustrative comparative risksa
(95% CI) |
Relative effect
(95% CI) |
No of Participants
(studies) |
Quality of the evidence
(GRADE) |
Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Autograft ACL reconstruction | Arthroscopic ACL repair | |||||
| Failure | Study population |
OR 1.56
(0.81–3) |
479 (8 studies) |
⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate |
||
| 67 per 1,000 |
101 per 1,000 (55–177) |
|||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 29 per 1,000 |
45 per 1,000 (24–82) |
|||||
| Complication | Study population |
OR 1.65
(0.65–4.15) |
320 (6 studies) |
⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate |
||
| 50 per 1,000 |
80 per 1,000 (33–180) |
|||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 22 per 1,000 |
36 per 1,000 (14–85) |
|||||
| Reoperation other than revision | Study population |
OR 1.09
(0.6–1.99) |
452 (7 studies) |
⊕⊕⊕⊝ moderate |
||
| 105 per 1,000 |
114 per 1,000 (66–190) |
|||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 100 per 1,000 |
108 per 1,000 (62–181) |
|||||
| Hardware removal | Study population |
OR 6.84
(2.24–20.92) |
269 (4 studies) |
⊕⊕⊝⊝ low |
||
| 25 per 1,000 |
150 per 1,000 (55–351) |
|||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 0 per 1,000 |
0 per 1,000 (0 to 0) |
|||||
| ΔATT | The mean ΔATT in the intervention groups was 0.02 higher (0.86 lower to 0.9 higher) |
314 (6 studies) |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low |
|||
| IKDC score | The mean IKDC score in the intervention groups was 1.97 higher (0.22–3.72 higher) |
187 (3 studies) |
⊕⊕⊝⊝ low |
|||
| Tegner score | The mean Tegner score in the intervention groups was 0.06 higher (0.26 lower to 0.39 higher) |
176 (3 studies) |
⊕⊕⊝⊝ low |
|||
| Lysholm score | The mean Lysholm score in the intervention groups was 2.21 higher (0.45 lower to 4.88 higher) |
169 (3 studies) |
⊕⊕⊝⊝ low |
|||
| Satisfaction | The mean satisfaction in the intervention groups was 0.1 lower (0.37 lower to 0.17 higher) |
187 (3 studies) |
⊕⊕⊕⊕ high |
|||
CI, Confidence interval; OR, Odds ratio.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence.
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.
a The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).