Skip to main content

Table 5 Summary of findings table

From: Fixed-loop vs. adjustable-loop cortical button devices for femoral fixation in ACL reconstruction – a systematic review and meta-analysis

Adjustable-loop devices compared to Fixed-loop devices for femoral graft fixation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Patient or population: femoral graft fixation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Setting: Patients undergoing ACL reconstruction

Intervention: Adjustable-loop devices

Comparison: Fixed-loop devices

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effectsa (95% CI)

№ of participants

(studies)

Certainty of the evidence

(GRADE)

Means in Fixed-loop devices

MD with Adjustable-loop devices

Knee Laxity

Assessed with: KT-1000

Scale from: 0 mm to 10 mm

Follow-up: 2 years

The mean knee Laxity was 1.4 mmb

MD 0.15 mm lower

[0.54—0.24]

357

(4 observational studies)

c,d

Very low

Patient Reported Knee Function (PROMS)

Assessed with: Lysholm score

Scale from: 0 to 100

Follow-up: 2 years

The mean patient Reported Knee Function was 89.5 Pointsb

MD 0.22 Points higher

[0.52—0.97]

475

(6 observational studies)

c,e

Very low

Patient Reported Knee Functions (PROMS)

assessed with: IKDC score

Scale from: 0 to 100

Follow-up: 2 years

The mean patient Reported Knee Functions was 84 Pointsb

MD 0.43 Points higher

[1.25—2.11]

358

(5 observational studies)

c,e

Very low

  1. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
  2. High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
  3. Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
  4. Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
  5. Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect
  6. CI Confidence interval, MD Mean difference
  7. aThe risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI)
  8. bFixed-loop group mean laxity and PROMS scores are calculated from pooled estimates
  9. cAll outcomes are downgraded to by two due to study design: observational studies
  10. dSerious inconsistency due to high heterogeneity (I2 = 61%) (p = 0.05)
  11. eSerious risk of bias due to confounding and measurement of outcomes (subjective reported outcomes)