23 August 2022>: Meta-Analysis
Optimal Surgical Treatment Method for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture: Results from a Network Meta-Analysis
Yudi Wu 1CDEF , Yajia Li 2BCD , Jia Guo 2BC , Qiangxiang Li 34BC , Jianhuang Wu 35BCD , Ziqin Cao 5ABCDEF* , Yulin Song 6ABCDEF*DOI: 10.12659/MSM.937118
Med Sci Monit 2022; 28:e937118
Table 10 Detailed results of subgroup analysis.
Treatment | SMD (95% CI) for subjective improvement | SURCA for subjective improvement, % | SMD (95%CI) for functional improvement | SURCA for functional improvement, % | SMD (95% CI) for activity improvement | SURCA for activity improvement, % | SMD (95% CI) for laxity | SURCA for laxity, % | RR (95% CI) for failure | SURCA for failure, % |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
irAllograft | Reference | 0.3 | Reference | 19.1 | Reference | 0.9 | Reference | 0.0 | Reference | 3.8 |
Autograft | 3.83 (2.01, 5.64) | 45.6 | 0.40 (−0.15, 0.95) | 60.5 | 0.55 (0.31, 0.80) | 65.6 | −2.32 (−2.89, −1.74) | 76.8 | 0.28 (0.15, 0.55) | 75.6 |
nirAllograft | 4.35 (1.87, 6.82) | 59.3 | 0.23 (−0.49, 0.94) | 40.0 | 0.39 (0.09, 0.68) | 32.8 | −2.00 (−2.82, −1.18) | 47.2 | 0.39 (0.18, 0.86) | 48.8 |
Hybrid | 3.21 (1.04, 5.38) | 32.7 | 0.10 (−0.65, 0.85) | 29.6 | 0.47 (0.13, 0.80) | 47.9 | −1.51 (−2.28, −0.73) | 29.9 | 0.30 (0.10, 0.86) | 68.2 |
waRepair | 5.40 (1.72, 9.08) | 73.0 | 0.40 (−0.52, 1.31) | 54.2 | 0.77 (0.36, 1.18) | 91.1 | −2.29 (−3.40, −1.18) | 66.5 | 0.27 (0.10, 0.76) | 75.7 |
nwaRepair | 7.93 (1.59, 14.26) | 89.1 | 1.35 (0.11, 2.58) | 96.7 | 0.57 (−0.05, 1.19) | 61.7 | −2.60 (−4.06, −1.15) | 79.5 | 0.55 (0.18, 1.73) | 27.8 |