Cochrane · systematic review · CD010875
One‐incision versus two‐incision techniques for arthroscopically assisted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in adults
Rezende, FC, Moraes, VY, Franciozi, CES, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2017 · Cochrane Library
Bone, Joint and Muscle TraumaAMSTAR 2: not assessed
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
7
current version
GRADE rated
5
No studies
2
Included studies
NR
No studies 2 · 28.6%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 5 · 71.4%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%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
One‐incision compared to two‐incision techniques for arthroscopically assisted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in adults
Population: adults undergoing arthroscopically assisted ACL reconstruction1
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Subjective function (short term) One‐incision vs two‐incision techniques | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 79 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Subjective function (intermediate term) One‐incision vs two‐incision techniques | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 79 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Subjective function (long term) One‐incision vs two‐incision techniques | RR 1.04 [0.91, 1.18] | 1 study · 85 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Quality of life(intermediate term) One‐incision vs two‐incision techniques | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Adverse events (overall) One‐incision vs two‐incision techniques | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Activity level (intermediate term) Tegner activity score (0 to 10: highest sport activity) One‐incision vs two‐incision techniques | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 59 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Objective functional knee assessments using IKDC10 (intermediate term)(normal or nearly normal assessment) One‐incision vs two‐incision techniques | RR 1.01 [0.85, 1.21] | 4 studies · 167 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |