Functional and Return-to-Sport Outcomes After Biologic Augmentation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IF 1.6 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Orthopedic Reviews Pub Date : 2026-06-08 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.52965/001c.162663
Abdullah A Alturki, Abdulmohsen S Alanazi, Abdulelah F Alshehri, Mohammed A Benmeakel, Fares S Alenazi, Turki A Aljuhani, Fahad M Alomairini, Dana W AlDughiman, Hussam S Alangari
{"title":"Functional and Return-to-Sport Outcomes After Biologic Augmentation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Abdullah A Alturki, Abdulmohsen S Alanazi, Abdulelah F Alshehri, Mohammed A Benmeakel, Fares S Alenazi, Turki A Aljuhani, Fahad M Alomairini, Dana W AlDughiman, Hussam S Alangari","doi":"10.52965/001c.162663","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The clinical value of biologic augmentation during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction remains uncertain, particularly regarding functional recovery and return to sport. Existing evidence has yielded inconsistent results, and prior syntheses have often emphasized radiologic outcomes rather than patient-centered functional measures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of comparative clinical studies evaluating biologic augmentation during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was conducted. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched without date restrictions. Tegner activity score, Lysholm knee score, International Knee Documentation Committee score, and return-to-sport outcomes were analyzed when available. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and the MINORS criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten studies were included. Biologic augmentation was associated with higher Tegner activity scores compared with standard reconstruction, with a pooled mean difference of 0.52 (95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.91) and no observed heterogeneity. Lysholm knee scores were also higher in the biologic augmentation group (mean difference 3.32, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 6.00), although substantial heterogeneity persisted across studies. No significant difference was observed in pooled International Knee Documentation Committee scores. Return-to-sport outcomes were reported inconsistently in only two studies and were not suitable for quantitative synthesis. Most randomized studies demonstrated some concerns regarding risk of bias, while non-randomized studies showed moderate methodological limitations.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Biologic augmentation during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is associated with modest improvements in selected functional outcomes but does not result in consistent gains in global knee function or return-to-sport outcomes. Current evidence does not support routine use of biologic augmentation in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.</p>","PeriodicalId":19669,"journal":{"name":"Orthopedic Reviews","volume":"18 ","pages":"162663"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13252956/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopedic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52965/001c.162663","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The clinical value of biologic augmentation during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction remains uncertain, particularly regarding functional recovery and return to sport. Existing evidence has yielded inconsistent results, and prior syntheses have often emphasized radiologic outcomes rather than patient-centered functional measures.

Methods: A systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of comparative clinical studies evaluating biologic augmentation during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was conducted. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched without date restrictions. Tegner activity score, Lysholm knee score, International Knee Documentation Committee score, and return-to-sport outcomes were analyzed when available. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and the MINORS criteria.

Results: Ten studies were included. Biologic augmentation was associated with higher Tegner activity scores compared with standard reconstruction, with a pooled mean difference of 0.52 (95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.91) and no observed heterogeneity. Lysholm knee scores were also higher in the biologic augmentation group (mean difference 3.32, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 6.00), although substantial heterogeneity persisted across studies. No significant difference was observed in pooled International Knee Documentation Committee scores. Return-to-sport outcomes were reported inconsistently in only two studies and were not suitable for quantitative synthesis. Most randomized studies demonstrated some concerns regarding risk of bias, while non-randomized studies showed moderate methodological limitations.

Conclusion: Biologic augmentation during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is associated with modest improvements in selected functional outcomes but does not result in consistent gains in global knee function or return-to-sport outcomes. Current evidence does not support routine use of biologic augmentation in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

前交叉韧带重建生物增强后的功能和恢复运动的结果:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
背景:生物增强在前交叉韧带重建中的临床价值仍然不确定,特别是在功能恢复和重返运动方面。现有的证据产生了不一致的结果,先前的综合通常强调放射学结果,而不是以患者为中心的功能测量。方法:系统回顾和随机效应荟萃分析比较临床研究评价生物增强在前交叉韧带重建。PubMed、Cochrane图书馆和谷歌Scholar的检索没有日期限制。对Tegner活动评分、Lysholm膝关节评分、国际膝关节文献委员会评分和恢复运动结果进行分析。使用Cochrane Risk of bias 2工具和minor标准评估偏倚风险。结果:纳入10项研究。与标准重建相比,生物增强与更高的Tegner活动评分相关,合并平均差异为0.52(95%可信区间为0.14至0.91),未观察到异质性。生物增强组Lysholm膝关节评分也较高(平均差异3.32,95%可信区间0.65至6.00),尽管各研究之间存在实质性异质性。在国际膝关节文献委员会的综合评分中没有观察到显著差异。只有两项研究报告了不一致的恢复运动结果,不适合定量综合。大多数随机研究显示出一些关于偏倚风险的担忧,而非随机研究显示出适度的方法学局限性。结论:前交叉韧带重建期间的生物增强与部分功能结果的适度改善有关,但并不能导致整体膝关节功能或恢复运动结果的持续改善。目前的证据不支持常规使用生物增强在初级前交叉韧带重建。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Orthopedic Reviews
Orthopedic Reviews ORTHOPEDICS-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
122
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: Orthopedic Reviews is an Open Access, online-only, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles concerned with any aspect of orthopedics, as well as diagnosis and treatment, trauma, surgical procedures, arthroscopy, sports medicine, rehabilitation, pediatric and geriatric orthopedics. All bone-related molecular and cell biology, genetics, pathophysiology and epidemiology papers are also welcome. The journal publishes original articles, brief reports, reviews and case reports of general interest.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书