Primary surgery versus primary rehabilitation for treating anterior cruciate ligament injuries: a living systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Compare the effectiveness of primarily surgical versus primarily rehabilitative management for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture. DESIGN: Living systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Six databases, six trial registries and prior systematic reviews. Forward and backward citation tracking was employed. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that compared primary reconstructive surgery and primary rehabilitative treatment with or without optional reconstructive surgery. DATA SYNTHESIS: Bayesian random effects meta-analysis with empirical priors for the OR and standardised mean difference and 95% credible intervals (CrI), Cochrane RoB2, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to judge the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: Of 9514 records, 9 reports of three studies (320 participants in total) were included. No clinically important differences were observed at any follow-up for self-reported knee function (low to very low certainty of evidence). For radiological knee osteoarthritis, we found no effect at very low certainty of evidence in the long term (OR (95% CrI): 1.45 (0.30 to 5.17), two studies). Meniscal damage showed no effect at low certainty of evidence (OR: 0.85 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.62); one study) in the long term. No differences were observed between treatments for any other secondary outcome. Three ongoing randomised controlled trials were identified. CONCLUSIONS: There is low to very low certainty of evidence that primary rehabilitation with optional surgical reconstruction results in similar outcome measures as early surgical reconstruction for ACL rupture. The findings challenge a historical paradigm that anatomic instability should be addressed with primary surgical stabilisation to provide optimal outcomes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021256537.

Evaluation of Exercise Interventions and Outcomes After Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Preoperative and postoperative exercise interventions are commonly used in patients with total hip arthroplasty despite a lack of established efficacy. Objective: To explore clinical outcomes associated with exercise training before and after hip arthroplasty. Data Sources: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, and Google Scholar were searched from their inception to March 2020. Reference lists of included trials and related reviews were also searched. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials of land-based exercise interventions before or after total hip arthroplasty were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: This systematic review and meta-analysis is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. Data extraction was independently performed in duplicate. Random-effects meta-analyses with restricted maximum likelihood were performed for pooling the data. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary prespecified outcome was self-reported physical function. Secondary prespecified outcomes were self-reported pain intensity, quality of life, gait speed, lower body muscle strength, lower body flexibility, anxiety, hospital length of stay, and adverse events. Results: A total of 32 randomized clinical trials with 1753 patients were included in the qualitative synthesis, and 26 studies with 1004 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with usual care or no or minimal intervention, postoperative exercise training was not associated with improved self-reported physical function, with a moderate level of certainty, at 4 weeks (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.01; 95% CI, -0.18 to 0.20), 12 weeks (SMD, -0.08; 95% CI, -0.23 to 0.07) and 26 weeks (SMD, -0.04; 95% CI, -0.31 to 0.24) postoperatively, and low level of certainty at 1 year after surgical treatment (SMD, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.09 to 0.12). For preoperative exercise interventions, there was no association of exercised training with self-reported physical function compared with the control at the 12-week (SMD, -0.14; 95% CI, -0.61 to 0.32) or 1-year follow-ups (SMD, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.37 to 0.40) with very low certainty, and no association with length of stay (mean difference, -0.21; 95% CI, -0.74 to 0.31) at moderate certainty. Results for postoperative hip muscle strength were rated at very low certainty, with no statistical significance. Meta-analysis could not be performed for other outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review and meta-analysis found low- to moderate-quality evidence that postoperative exercise interventions were not associated with improved self-reported physical function compared with usual care or no or minimal intervention. Furthermore, there was very low-quality evidence that preoperative exercise programs were not associated with higher self-reported physical function and hospital length of stay compared with usual care or no or minimal intervention.