Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Patients Older Than 50 Years: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Chong-Wei Tan, Wei-Hsiu Hsu, Pei-An Yu, Chi-Lung Chen, Liang-Tseng Kuo, Ching-Chi Chi, Dokyung Kim, Geon Park
Author Information
  1. Chong-Wei Tan: Division of Sports Medicine, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Puzi, Taiwan.
  2. Wei-Hsiu Hsu: Division of Sports Medicine, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Puzi, Taiwan.
  3. Pei-An Yu: Division of Sports Medicine, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Puzi, Taiwan.
  4. Chi-Lung Chen: Division of Sports Medicine, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Puzi, Taiwan.
  5. Liang-Tseng Kuo: Division of Sports Medicine, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Puzi, Taiwan.
  6. Ching-Chi Chi: College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
  7. Dokyung Kim: School of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
  8. Geon Park: School of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus regarding the best treatment approach for middle-aged patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. Chronic ACL-deficient knees are often associated with instability as well as secondary meniscal and cartilage lesions. ACL reconstruction (ACLR) has achieved satisfactory outcomes in younger patients; however, the effectiveness and safety of ACLR in middle-aged patients remain uncertain.
PURPOSE: To compare the patient-reported functional scores, arthrometric outcomes, and complications of primary ACLR between older (≥50 years) and younger (<50 years) patients.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of cohort studies that compared the clinical outcomes of ACLR between patients aged ≥50 years and those aged <50 years. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and MEDLINE databases were searched for relevant studies. The Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria was used to assess the risk of bias and conducted a random-effects meta-analysis to combine the data, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to evaluate the overall quality of the body of retrieved evidence. The primary outcome was knee functional outcomes, and secondary outcomes were arthrometric outcomes of ACLR and complications.
RESULTS: This study included 4 retrospective cohort studies with a total of 287 participants (129 in the older group and 158 in the younger group). All included studies reported significant improvements in clinical outcomes in both groups after ACLR. No significant differences were noted in the improvement of International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores (mean difference [MD], 0.20 [95% CI, -2.65 to 3.05]; = .89) and Lysholm scores (MD, -1.98 [95% CI, -6.93 to 2.98]; = .43) between the 2 groups. No significant differences were observed in anteroposterior stability or risk of complications between the groups.
CONCLUSION: ACLR may be performed in middle-aged patients (≥50 years) without concern for inferior clinical and arthrometric results compared with younger patients (<50 years).

Keywords

References

  1. Stat Med. 2002 Jun 15;21(11):1539-58 [PMID: 12111919]
  2. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018 Apr;26(4):1266-1272 [PMID: 28712027]
  3. Am J Sports Med. 2018 Jul;46(8):2011-2019 [PMID: 28982255]
  4. PLoS Med. 2009 Jul 21;6(7):e1000097 [PMID: 19621072]
  5. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015 Jan;23(1):232-9 [PMID: 23595538]
  6. Am J Sports Med. 2017 Mar;45(4):832-837 [PMID: 28056178]
  7. Am J Sports Med. 1999 Nov-Dec;27(6):821-30 [PMID: 10569374]
  8. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013 Oct 2;95(19):1751-9 [PMID: 24088967]
  9. Phys Sportsmed. 2017 Sep;45(3):303-308 [PMID: 28449611]
  10. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019 Jan;27(1):230-238 [PMID: 30600340]
  11. Orthop J Sports Med. 2017 Oct 02;5(10):2325967117729659 [PMID: 29051896]
  12. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2007 Nov;127(9):835-43 [PMID: 17440744]
  13. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018 Aug;26(8):2381-2388 [PMID: 29138919]
  14. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2019 Jun;139(6):819-841 [PMID: 30758661]
  15. BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928 [PMID: 22008217]
  16. Orthop Clin North Am. 2002 Oct;33(4):675-83 [PMID: 12528909]
  17. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017 Oct;25(10):3061-3075 [PMID: 27043346]
  18. Knee Surg Relat Res. 2018 Jun 1;30(2):95-106 [PMID: 29843196]
  19. Control Clin Trials. 1986 Sep;7(3):177-88 [PMID: 3802833]
  20. ANZ J Surg. 2003 Sep;73(9):712-6 [PMID: 12956787]
  21. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019 Nov;27(11):3441-3452 [PMID: 30719542]
  22. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005 Apr 20;5:13 [PMID: 15840177]
  23. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018 Dec;26(12):3738-3753 [PMID: 29876862]
  24. Arthroscopy. 2007 Jun;23(6):629-34 [PMID: 17560477]
  25. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011 Mar;19(3):412-7 [PMID: 20734026]
  26. Sports Health. 2016 Mar-Apr;8(2):177-81 [PMID: 26674619]
  27. Orthop J Sports Med. 2018 Jul 24;6(7):2325967118786507 [PMID: 30057927]
  28. Am J Sports Med. 2016 Jun;44(6):1502-7 [PMID: 26920430]
  29. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2019 May;65:45-50 [PMID: 30965227]
  30. Ann Readapt Med Phys. 2004 Aug;47(6):309-16 [PMID: 15297121]
  31. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2003 Jul;11(4):204-11 [PMID: 12761610]
  32. Arthroscopy. 2008 Aug;24(8):914-20 [PMID: 18657740]
  33. Int Orthop. 2018 May;42(5):1043-1049 [PMID: 29532113]
  34. Am J Sports Med. 2018 Jul;46(8):1800-1808 [PMID: 29741911]
  35. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008 Nov;90(11):1446-50 [PMID: 18978263]
  36. Arthroscopy. 2016 Jan;32(1):153-63.e18 [PMID: 26474743]
  37. Br J Sports Med. 2018 Jan;52(2):128-138 [PMID: 28223305]
  38. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010 Jan;18(1):68-72 [PMID: 19672578]
  39. BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60 [PMID: 12958120]