Open AccessSystematic review on cadaveric studies of anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
Author(s) -
Eck Carola F.,
Samuelsson Kristian,
Vyas Shail M.,
Dijk C. Niek,
Karlsson Jon,
Fu Freddie H.
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.806
H-Index - 125
eISSN - 1433-7347
pISSN - 0942-2056
DOI - 10.1007/s00167-011-1544-7
Subject(s) - medicine , cadaveric spasm , anterior cruciate ligament , anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction , medline , anterolateral ligament , medical literature , surgery , medical physics , pathology , political science , law
Purpose One of the templates in the development of “anatomic” anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has been basic science studies focusing on comparing various aspects of ACL reconstruction in order to optimize surgical technique. However, often such papers lack necessary data in the methods section to ascertain the proposed surgical technique as anatomic. The goal of this systematic review was to evaluate basic science studies on anatomic ACL reconstruction. Methods A systematic electronic search was performed using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Studies that were published from January 1995 to April 2009 were included. Only basic science studies on human cadavers that reported “anatomic” ACL reconstruction and written in English were included. Variation in surgical technique and reporting of surgical description were assessed. Results Eighteen studies were included in this systematic review. Only the fixation method, graft type and tension pattern were reported in the majority studies. Notchplasty and radiographic documentation were grossly underreported. Other surgical data were reported at best in two‐thirds of the studies. There was a large variation in the reported surgical techniques among the included studies. Due to the aforementioned, it was not deemed possible to pool data of the included studies. Conclusion For most variables in the surgical technique description, there was sizeable underreporting resulting in an inability to pool the outcomes. To provide literature that holds up to the current high level of medical research, authors are encouraged to report their surgical technique in a thorough manner, similar to high‐level clinical trials. Level of evidence Systematic review, Level II.