Abstract
BACKGROUND Previous studies have shown that primary repair (PR) and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) can effectively treat ACL injuries. Our study aimed to compare different treatments of ACL tears, including autograft, allograft, hybrid graft ACLR, and PR, by assessing clinical outcomes and adverse events. MATERIAL AND METHODS PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and CNKI databases were searched and a frequentist-framework network meta-analysis was used. RESULTS Overall, PR with augmentation was superior to ACLR only for activity recovery (WMD 0.28 95%CI [0.07 to 0.49]), and there was no significant difference shown between PR without augmentation and ACLR. ACLR with irradiated allograft was a poor option for the treatment of ACL rupture, showing the weakest subjective evaluations and functional outcomes and worst safety profile. PR with or without augmentation provided fairly good postoperative efficacy results and produced less postoperative knee laxity than irradiated allograft ACLR (PR: standardized mean difference [SMD] -1.27 [-1.80 to -0.74]; ACLR: SMD -1.36 [-1.88 to -0.83]). However, PR without augmentation showed a high failure rate compared with autograft ACLR (autograft vs PR without augmentation: risk ratio 0.29 [0.10 to 0.85]). CONCLUSIONS For surgical treatment of ACL rupture, irradiated allograft ACLR had the worst efficacy and safety and is not recommended. PR may be an ideal treatment method in terms of efficacy but it is related to a significantly higher revision risk if without augmentation. Autograft ACLR may be the preferred method currently available for most patients requiring surgical treatment of ACL rupture.