Importance: The timing of surgery has been regarded as a key factor in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), and early vs delayed ACLR remains a controversial topic.Objective: To synthesize up-to-date published data from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing early vs elective delayed ACLR for patients with ACL deficiency, in terms of clinical outcomes and complications.Data Sources: The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were systematically searched until September 9, 2022.Study Selection: All published RCTs comparing clinical and functional outcomes and complications associated with early ACLR vs elective delayed ACLR.Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently extracted relevant data and assessed the methodological quality following the PRISMA guidelines.Main Outcomes and Measures: Due to the clinical heterogeneity, the random-effects model was preferred. The primary outcomes were functional outcomes and complications. The Mantel-Haenszel test was used to evaluate dichotomous variables and the inverse variance method was used to assess continuous variables.Results: This meta-analysis included 972 participants in 11 RCTs stratified by follow-up duration. The following factors did not differ between early and delayed ACLR: operative time (mean difference, 4.97; 95% CI, −0.68 to 10.61; P = .08), retear (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.52-4.43; P = .44), and infection (OR, 3.80; 95% CI, 0.77-18.79; P = .10). There were also no differences between groups in range of motion, knee laxity, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC rating scale), and Tegner score. IKDC score (mean difference, 2.77; 95% CI, 1.89-3.66; P < .001), and Lysholm score at 2-year follow-up (mean difference, 2.61; 95% CI, 0.74-4.48; P = .006) significantly differed between early and delayed ACLR. In addition, the timing of surgery was redefined in the included RCTs and subgroup analyses were performed, which validated the robustness of the principal results.Conclusion and Relevance: This systematic review and meta-analysis found that early ACLR was not superior to delayed ACLR in terms of most factors analyzed, except for IKDC and Lysholm scores. This information should be available to patients with ACL deficiency and clinicians as part of the shared decision-making process of treatment selection.

Although most studies have introduced risk factors related to anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction failure, studies on combinations of high-risk factors are rare. To provide a systematic review of the risk factors of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction failure to guide surgeons through the decision-making process, an extensive literature search was performed of the Medline, Embase and Cochrane Library databases. Studies published between January 1, 2009, and September 19, 2019, regarding the existing evidence for risk factors of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction failure or graft failure were included in this review. Study quality was evaluated with the quality index. Ultimately, 66 articles met our criteria. There were 46 cases classified as technical factors, 21 cases as patient-related risk factors, and 14 cases as status of the knee joint. Quality assessment scores ranged from 14 to 24. This systematic review provides a comprehensive summary of the risk factors for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction failure, including technical factors, patient-related factors, and the factors associated with the status of the knee joint. Emphasis should be placed on avoiding these high-risk combinations or correcting modifiable risk factors during preoperative planning to reduce the rate of graft rupture and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction failure.

The objective of this study was to compare cup survival and the incidence of adverse events associated with the use of trabecular metal (TM) and non-TM cups for acetabular revision surgery. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for comparative studies that reported cup survival and the incidence of adverse events associated with the use of TM and non-TM cups for acetabular revision surgery. Primary outcomes included cup survival, aseptic loosening, dislocation, and infection. The meta-analysis included 6 studies that involved 13,864 total hip arthroplasty (THA) revisions who underwent acetabular revision surgery with TM (n = 5,619) or non-TM (n = 8,245) cups. The meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference in cup survival using re-revision for any reason or aseptic loosening as the endpoint following acetabular revision surgery with TM or non-TM cups (HR = 0.96; [95% CI, 0.84-1.09]; HR = 1.29; [95% CI, 0.70-2.38]). Pooled data indicated that the overall incidence of adverse events for TM or non-TM cups was 6.8% (382/5,289) and 9.0% (725/8,083), respectively, and not significantly different (OR = 0.91; [95% CI, 0.80-1.04]). The incidence of aseptic loosening and infection were significantly lower (OR = 0.75; [95% CI, 0.58-0.96]; OR = 0.70; [95% CI, 0.54-0.90]) and the incidence of dislocation was significantly higher (OR = 1.53; [95% CI, 1.22-1.91]) for TM compared to non-TM cups. This review was the first to use reconstructed time-to-event data to find that there was no difference in survival of TM and non-TM cups in acetabular revision surgery. Overall, fewer adverse events were associated with the use of TM compared to non-TM cups, but the difference was not significant. The incidence of aseptic loosening and infection were significantly lower and the incidence of dislocation was significantly higher for TM compared to non-TM cups. This information is expected to guide orthopedic surgeons in the selection of appropriate acetabular components for THA revision.