Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of included studies

From: Remnant preservation technique versus standard technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Study

Year

Study type

Sample (RP/ST)

Mean age (RP/ST)

Gender M,F (RP/ST)

Surgical technique

Graft type

Fixation method (F/T)

Follow-up interval (mo)(RP/ST)

Quality assessmenta

Andonovski et al.

2017

RCT

33/33

28/28

NR/NR

A, SB

HT

Endobutton/Interfernce screw

7/7

Unclear risk

Lu et al.

2015

RCT

36/36

29.3/31.4

36,0/36,0

A, DB

HT

Endobutton/Interfernce screw

34.7/39.6

Unclear risk

Hong et al.

2012

RCT

39/41

31/31

33,12/34,11

A, SB

TA/HT allograft

RigidFix/IntraFix

25.8/25.5

Unclear risk

Pujol et al.

2012

RCT

29/25

31.24/28.56

16,13/17,8

A, SB

HT/BPTB

Interference screw, cortical button/Interference screw, double fixation

12/12

Unclear risk

DemiraÄŸ et al.

2012

RCT

20/20

31/28

18,2/18,2

A, SB

HT

Cross-pin/Screw

24.3/24.3

Unclear risk

Zhang et al.

2014

RCT

27/24

23.5/25.3

19,4/21,5

A, SB

HT

RigidFix/Interference screw

24.4 ± 25.2

Unclear risk

Gohil et al.

2007

RCT

24/25

30.5/35.5

14,10/13,12

A, SB

HT

Endobutton/Interfernce screw

12/12

Unclear risk

  1. RCT, randomized controlled trial; M, male; F, female; mo, month; NR, not reported; RP, remnant preservation; ST, standard; A, anatomic reconstruction; SB, single-bundle reconstruction; DB, double-bundle reconstruction; HT, hamstring tendon; TA, tibialis anterior; BPTB, bone-patellar tendon-bone
  2. aCochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias for RCTs (graded as low risk of bias, high risk of bias, or unclear risk of bias)