Efficacy and safety of early versus delayed reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament injuries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To critically evaluate the efficacy and safety of early versus delayed anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries based on the different cut-off values of the timing of operation. METHODS: PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature, and Wanfang Digital Periodical database were searched from inception to November 2022 without language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies (CSs) comparing early ACLR with delayed ACLR for ACL injuries were included. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies (10 RCTs and 14 CSs) were included. According to the information from included studies, 3 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months after ACL injuries were considered as the cut-off values of early and delayed ACLR. When 4 weeks were considered as the cut-off value, early ACLR could significantly improve Lysholm score, IKDC score and VAS score at 6 and 12 months postoperatively and decrease the incidence of adverse events compared with delayed ACLR (P < 0.05). However, no statistically significant difference in positive rate of Lachman test and incidence of meniscus injuries and chondral lesions between the two groups when 3 weeks, 6 weeks, 6 months or 12 months after ACL injuries were considered as the cut-off values of early and delayed ACLR (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The present study suggests that early ACLR, especially conducted within 3-4 weeks after ACL injuries, may be more effective for improving knee function and relieving pain compared with delayed ACLR. More high-quality RCTs are warranted.

Efficacy and Safety of Oblique Lumbar Interbody Fusion Versus Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion for Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We critically evaluated the efficacy and safety of oblique lumbar interbody fusion (OLIF) versus transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) for degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS). METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, the Web of Science Core Collection, Chinese Biomedical Literature, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Digital Periodicals, and Chinese Science and Technology Periodicals were searched from their inception to February 2021. Randomized controlled trials and retrospective or prospective cohort studies (CSs) comparing OLIF and TLIF for DLS were included. A meta-analysis was conducted, if possible. RESULTS: Ten studies were included in the statistical analysis. The pooled results of the CSs showed no statistically significant differences (P > 0.05) in pain relief at 3 or 6 months of follow-up and functional improvement at 1 or 3 months of follow-up in DLS patients between those who had undergone OLIF versus TLIF. The pooled results of the CSs showed that OLIF could significantly improve the degree of lumbar lordosis, foraminal height, and disc height and decrease the intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, operative duration, bed rest time, and hospital length of stay (P < 0.05) compared with TLIF. The incidence of adverse events was not significantly different statistically between OLIF and TLIF. CONCLUSIONS: The results from the present study suggest that pain relief and functional improvement were not significantly different between OLIF and TLIF. Nevertheless, the use of OLIF might improve radiological outcomes and reduce intraoperative blood loss, postoperative drainage volume, operative duration, bed rest duration, and hospital length of stay compared with TLIF. Additional high-quality randomized controlled trials are still required to confirm these findings.