Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anterior cruciate ligament injury is a common knee joint injury. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is a common surgical treatment to treat anterior cruciate ligament injury. It may have certain advantages to retain the ligament stump during the operation, but the results of systematic evaluation on whether to retain the ligament stump are different. The conclusion is still controversial, and the quality needs to be strictly evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the methodological quality, risk of bias, reporting quality and evidence quality of the systematic review of remnant preservation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, and to provide reference for clinical work. METHODS: We systematically searched the system evaluations in 8 electronic databases, the languages were limited to Chinese and English, and the time limit was from the establishment of the database to June 2023. Two reviewers independently screened literature and extracted data. The methodological quality, risk of bias, reporting quality and quality of evidence were evaluated by AMSTAR-2, ROBIS, PRISMA and GRADE tools. RESULTS: A total of 14 systematic reviews were included. The evaluation of results showed that the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews was relatively low, of which 5 were low quality and 9 were critically low quality. A small number of systematic reviews were low risk of bias. The system evaluation reports are relatively complete, but the lack of program registration is a common problem. A total of 111 pieces of clinical evidence were extracted from the included 14 systematic reviews. The quality of evidence was generally low, with only 7 pieces of high-quality evidence, 45 pieces of medium-quality evidence, and the rest were low and very low-quality evidence. Among the reasons for relegation, imprecision is the most common, followed by inconsistency and indirectness. The existing evidence shows that patients after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with remnant preservation have certain advantages in knee joint function, joint stability and proprioception recovery, which may be a more effective surgical method. However, it may also increase the incidence of postoperative complications and adverse reactions. CONCLUSION: Compared with Standard Technique, Remnant Preservation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction has more advantages in restoring joint function and stability and proprioception. But the potential risks should also be considered by surgeons. At present, the quality of evidence is generally low, and the reliability of the conclusion is insufficient. It still needs to be verified and further in-depth research is needed.