Cochrane · systematic review · CD007601
Computer‐assisted surgery for knee ligament reconstruction
Eggerding, V, Reijman, M, Scholten, RJPM, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2014 · Cochrane Library
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
5
current version
GRADE rated
4
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 1 · 20%Very low 1 · 20%Low 2 · 40%Moderate 1 · 20%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Current version onlyComputer‐assisted reconstruction surgery compared with conventional operating techniques for ACL or PCL injuries in adults
Population: People, primarily adults, undergoing ACL reconstruction surgery
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Functional status at 2 years or more: subjective IKDC score (score 0 to 100: best function) Computer‐assisted reconstruction surgery vs conventional operating techniques | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 120 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Functional status at 2 years or more: Lysholm score (score 0 to 100: best function) Computer‐assisted reconstruction surgery vs conventional operating techniques | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 120 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Functional status at 2 years or more: Tegner activity score (score 0 to 10: highest activity) Computer‐assisted reconstruction surgery vs conventional operating techniques | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
IKDC knee examination grade normal (grade A) or nearly normal (grade B) ‐ Intermediate/long‐term Computer‐assisted reconstruction surgery vs conventional operating techniques | RR 1.01 [0.96, 1.06] | 3 studies · 173 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse post‐surgical events Computer‐assisted reconstruction surgery vs conventional operating techniques | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 140 participants | Ungraded |
Computer‐assisted reconstruction surgery compared with conventional operating techniques for ACL or PCL injuries in adults
Population: People, primarily adults, undergoing ACL reconstruction surgery
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Functional status at 2 years or more: subjective IKDC score (score 0 to 100: best function) Computer‐assisted reconstruction surgery vs conventional operating techniques | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 120 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Functional status at 2 years or more: Lysholm score (score 0 to 100: best function) Computer‐assisted reconstruction surgery vs conventional operating techniques | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 120 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Functional status at 2 years or more: Tegner activity score (score 0 to 10: highest activity) Computer‐assisted reconstruction surgery vs conventional operating techniques | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
IKDC knee examination grade normal (grade A) or nearly normal (grade B) ‐ Intermediate/long‐term Computer‐assisted reconstruction surgery vs conventional operating techniques | RR 1.01 [0.96, 1.06] | 3 studies · 173 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse post‐surgical events Computer‐assisted reconstruction surgery vs conventional operating techniques | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 140 participants | Ungraded |