METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane database were systematically searched. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) English articles, (2) noncomparative study or relevant study reporting clinical and/or stability results, and (3) timing of the ACL reconstruction as a primary objective. Study type, level of evidence, randomization method, exclusion criteria, number of cases, age, sex, timing of ACL reconstruction, follow-up, clinical outcomes, stability outcomes, and other relevant findings were recorded. Statistical analysis of the Lysholm scores and KT-1000 arthrometer measurements after early and delayed ACL reconstruction was performed using R version 3.3.1.
RESULTS: Seven articles were included in the final analysis. There were 6 randomized controlled trials and 1 Level II study. Pooled analysis was performed using only Level I studies. All studies assessed the timing of ACL reconstruction as a primary objective. The definition of early ranged broadly from 9 days to 5 months and delayed ranged from 10 weeks to >24 months, and there was an overlap of the time intervals between some studies. The standard timing of the delayed reconstruction was around 10 weeks from injury in the pooled analysis. After pooling of data, clinical result was not statistically different between groups (I2: 47%, moderate level of heterogeneity). No statistically significant difference was observed in the KT-1000 arthrometer measurements between groups (I2: 76.2%, high level of heterogeneity) either.
CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis performed using currently available high-quality literature provides relatively strong evidence that early ACL reconstruction results in good clinical and stability outcomes. Early ACL reconstruction results in comparable clinical and stability outcomes compared with delayed ACL reconstruction.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, a systematic review and meta-analysis of Level I and II studies.
METHODS: Nine full-text articles in English that reported the clinical and radiological outcomes of KA TKA were included. Five studies had a control group of patients who underwent MA TKA. Data on patient demographics, clinical scores, and radiological results were extracted. There were two level I, one level II, three level III, and three level IV studies. Six of the nine studies used patient-specific instrumentation, one study used computer navigation, and two studies used manual instrumentation.
RESULTS: The clinical outcomes of KA TKA were comparable or superior to those of MA TKA with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Limb and knee alignment in KA TKA was similar to those in MA TKA, and component alignment showed slightly more varus in the tibial component and slightly more valgus in the femoral component. The JLOA in KA TKA was relatively parallel to the floor compared to that in the native knee and not oblique (medial side up and lateral side down) compared to that in MA TKA. The implant survivorship and complication rate of the KA TKA were similar to those of the MA TKA.
CONCLUSION: Similar or better clinical outcomes were produced by using a KA TKA at early-term follow-up and the component alignment differed from that of MA TKA. KA TKA seemed to restore function without catastrophic failure regardless of the alignment category up to midterm follow-up. The JLOA in KA TKA was relatively parallel to the floor similar to the native knee compared to that in MA TKA. The present review of nine published studies suggests that relatively new kinematic alignment is an acceptable and alternative alignment to mechanical alignment, which is better understood. Further validation of these findings requires more randomized clinical trials with longer follow-up.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.
METHODS: Search was performed using a MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane database, and each of the selected studies was evaluated for methodological quality using a risk of bias (ROB) covering 7 criteria. Clinical and radiological outcomes with more than 5 years of follow-up were evaluated after surgical treatment of DLM. They were analyzed according to the age, follow-up period, kind of surgery, DLM type, and alignment.
RESULTS: Eleven articles (422 DLM cases) were included in the final analysis. Among 7 criteria, 3 criteria showed little ROB in all studies. However, 4 criteria showed some ROB ("Yes" in 63.6% to 81.8%). The minimal follow-up period was 5.5 years (weighted mean follow-up: 9.1 years). Surgical procedures were performed with open or arthroscopic partial central meniscectomy, subtotal meniscectomy, total meniscectomy, or partial meniscectomy with repair. The majority of the studies showed good clinical results. Mild joint space narrowing was reported in the lateral compartment, but none of the knees demonstrated moderate or advanced degenerative changes. Increased age at surgery, longer follow-up period, and subtotal or total meniscectomy could be related to degenerative change. The majority of the complications was osteochondritis dissecans at the lateral femoral condyle (13 cases) and reoperation was performed by osteochondritis dissecans (4 cases), recurrent swelling (2 cases), residual symptom (1 case), stiffness (1 case), and popliteal stenosis (1 case).
CONCLUSIONS: Good clinical results were obtained with surgical treatment of symptomatic DLM. The progression of degenerative change was minimal and none of the knees demonstrated moderate or advanced degenerative changes. Increased age at surgery, longer follow-up period, and subtotal or total meniscectomy were possible risk factors for degenerative changes.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level IV studies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Results that are possible to be compared in more than two articles were presented as forest plots. A 95% confidence interval was calculated for each effect size, and we calculated the I 2 statistic, which presents the percentage of total variation attributable to the heterogeneity among studies. The random effects model was used to calculate the effect size.
RESULTS: Seven articles were included to the final analysis. Case groups were composed of HTO without concurrent procedures and control groups were composed of HTO with concurrent procedures such as marrow stimulation procedure, mesenchymal stem cell transplantation, and injection. The case group showed a higher hospital for special surgery score and mean difference was 4.10 [I 2 80.8%, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 9.02 to 4.82]. Mean difference of the mechanical femorotibial angle in five studies was 0.08° (I 2 0%, 95% CI - 0.26 to 0.43). However, improved arthroscopic, histologic, and MRI results were reported in the control group.
CONCLUSION: Our analysis support that concurrent procedures during HTO for medial compartment OA have little beneficial effect regarding clinical and radiological outcomes. However, they might have some beneficial effects in terms of arthroscopic, histologic, and MRI findings even though the quality of healed cartilage is not good as that of original cartilage. Therefore, until now, concurrent procedures for medial compartment OA have been considered optional. Nevertheless, no conclusions can be drawn for younger patients with focal cartilage defects and concomitant varus deformity. This question needs to be addressed separately.