Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

What is the best evidence for graft choice in ACL reconstruction? Protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Junaid Habibi, Alexander Zakharia, View ORCID ProfileTaylor Woolnough, Daniel Axelrod, Darren de SA
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.10.19014266
Junaid Habibi
1McMaster University
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alexander Zakharia
1McMaster University
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Taylor Woolnough
2Michael G DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Taylor Woolnough
  • For correspondence: taylor.woolnough@gmail.com
Daniel Axelrod
3Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, McMaster University
4Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Darren de SA
3Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, McMaster University
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Introduction Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is one of the most commonly performed sports medicine procedures. A variety of grafts are currently used for reconstruction, including both allograft and autograft. Despite numerous meta-analyses, there exists no high-quality quantitative synthesis of all randomized controlled trial (RCT) data on graft choice.

Objective To identify the optimal graft choice for ACL reconstruction by performing the first systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to include both functional outcomes and complications.

Methods Multiple digital databases including MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL will be searched independently and in duplicate for RCTs randomizing graft choice in ACL reconstruction in skeletally mature patients. A Bayesian framework with a random-effects model will be used for NMA. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) values will be used to generate a rank list for each outcome. Results will be reported as mean differences (MD) (or standardized mean difference, if necessary) or relative risk (RR) with 95% credible intervals (CI). Comparisons will be inferred to be statistically significant if the 95% CI of MD does not cross zero or if the 95% CI of relative risk does not cross one. Studies will be assessed for quality using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. Quality of evidence for each network comparison will be determined as per the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for network meta-analyses. This NMA will be reported according to the PRISMA extension statement for network meta-analyses

Outcomes of interest Functional outcomes of interest including range of motion, return to activity/sport, and IKDC, Lysholm, Tegner, ACL-QOL, and KOOS scores. Persistent laxity as measured by Lachman, Pivot-shift, side-to-side, and measured laxity (e.g. KT-1000) will also be analyzed. Complications (e.g. infection, graft failure, donor site pain), tunnel osteolysis, and failure (including but not limited to graft rupture and/or persistent laxity) will be compared between grafts.

Relevance/Impact This NMA will be the first high-quality syntheses of all randomized evidence regarding graft choice in ACL reconstruction. As the first analysis to compare all major graft choices independently, it will be used to inform surgeon-patient decision making. It has the reasonable possibility of changing clinical practice.

Competing Interest Statement

The senior author is a member of the International Quadriceps Tendon Interest Group.

Funding Statement

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author Declarations

All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.

Yes

All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.

Yes

Footnotes

  • This work was performed at the Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

  • T Woolnough, Michael G DeGroote School of Medicine, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S4L8, +1 (519) 731 2320, Taylor.woolnough{at}medportal.ca

Data Availability

Not applicable.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted December 14, 2019.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
What is the best evidence for graft choice in ACL reconstruction? Protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
What is the best evidence for graft choice in ACL reconstruction? Protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Junaid Habibi, Alexander Zakharia, Taylor Woolnough, Daniel Axelrod, Darren de SA
medRxiv 2019.12.10.19014266; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.10.19014266
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
What is the best evidence for graft choice in ACL reconstruction? Protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Junaid Habibi, Alexander Zakharia, Taylor Woolnough, Daniel Axelrod, Darren de SA
medRxiv 2019.12.10.19014266; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2019.12.10.19014266

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Orthopedics
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (70)
  • Allergy and Immunology (168)
  • Anesthesia (51)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (455)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (83)
  • Dermatology (55)
  • Emergency Medicine (159)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (191)
  • Epidemiology (5294)
  • Forensic Medicine (3)
  • Gastroenterology (198)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (760)
  • Geriatric Medicine (80)
  • Health Economics (214)
  • Health Informatics (702)
  • Health Policy (362)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (224)
  • Hematology (100)
  • HIV/AIDS (165)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (5934)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (367)
  • Medical Education (105)
  • Medical Ethics (25)
  • Nephrology (83)
  • Neurology (772)
  • Nursing (43)
  • Nutrition (135)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (146)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (234)
  • Oncology (481)
  • Ophthalmology (153)
  • Orthopedics (39)
  • Otolaryngology (97)
  • Pain Medicine (39)
  • Palliative Medicine (20)
  • Pathology (141)
  • Pediatrics (223)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (138)
  • Primary Care Research (99)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (865)
  • Public and Global Health (2035)
  • Radiology and Imaging (354)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (159)
  • Respiratory Medicine (287)
  • Rheumatology (94)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (74)
  • Sports Medicine (77)
  • Surgery (110)
  • Toxicology (25)
  • Transplantation (29)
  • Urology (39)