Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

The recovery trajectory of anterior cruciate ligament ruptures in randomised controlled trials: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of operative and nonoperative treatments

Ali Ridha 1
, 
Siddarth Raj 2
, 
Henry Searle 3
, 
AHMED IMRAN 3
, 
Nicholas Smith 4
, 
Andrew Metcalfe 5
, 
Chetan Khatri 5
1
 
Trauma and Orthopaedics University of Warwick Coventry United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
2
 
Trauma and Orthopaedics University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust Coventry United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
3
 
Trauma and Orthopaedics University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Walsgrave General Hospital Coventry United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
4
 
Trauma and Orthopaedics University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, UHCW Coventry United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
5
 
Trauma and Orthopaedics University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Walsgrave General Hospital, University of Warwick Coventry United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Publication type: Journal Article
Publication date: 2025-02-20
scimago Q1
SJR: 1.785
CiteScore: 8.1
Impact factor: 3.3
ISSN: 09422056, 14337347
Abstract
Purpose

The purpose of this research was to understand the trajectory of recovery following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction compared to nonoperative treatments.

Methods

A systematic review and meta‐analysis approach was used to evaluate randomised controlled trials (RCTs). A comprehensive search was conducted on databases including Medline, Embase, Web of Science and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up until 18 May 2023. The study focused on full‐text RCTs involving patients with partial or complete ACL tears. Included were studies focusing on patients undergoing ACL reconstruction or nonoperative care. The primary outcome was characterising the effects of treatments and tracking changes in International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Evaluation Form (IKDC) outcomes over time. The secondary outcome was characterising and tracking the changes of the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score subscales, ACL‐quality‐of‐life questionnaire, Lysholm, Tegner and CKRS scores.

Results

A total of 84 RCTs were included. The pooled standardised mean changes for the IKDC compared with baseline were: 2.0 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.3–3.6) at 3 months, 2.2 (95% CI: 0.9–3.6) at 6 months, 2.2 (95% CI: 0.8–3.6) at 12 months and 2.3 (95% CI: 1.3–3.4) at 24 months. Graphs illustrating IKDC scores over time further emphasise these findings, showing a sustained improvement over time to 12 months, with a plateauing of scores past this time point. Our secondary outcome patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) also showed a similar pattern with scores plateauing at the 12‐months mark.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that the IKDC score and other PROMs are effective for tracking recovery up to 12 months. Other PROMs show pain and daily activities generally recover within 6 months, and quality of life improves up to 12 months, but PROMs show minimal improvement beyond this period. This inconsistency with a return sport period indicates that PROMs may lack the sensitivity required to assess this aspect of recovery accurately.

Level of Evidence

Level I.

Found 

Are you a researcher?

Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
Share
Cite this
GOST | RIS | BibTex
Found error?