Persistent knee extension deficits are common after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2023 Aug;31(8):3172-3185. doi: 10.1007/s00167-022-07299-3. Epub 2023 Jan 27.

Abstract

Purpose: Knee extension deficits complicate recovery from ACL injury and reconstruction; however, the incidence of knee extension loss is not well defined. The aim of this review was to identify the incidence of loss of extension (LOE) following ACL rupture and reconstruction, explore the definitions of knee extension deficits reported and identify prognostic factors affecting LOE incidence.

Methods: A systematic search was conducted in Medline, Cochrane Library and PEDro for studies in publication up to November 2021, with no restrictions on publication year. References were screened and assessed for inclusion using predetermined eligibility criteria. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that quantified knee angle, loss of extension or incidence of extension deficit were included for quality assessment and data extraction. Statistical summaries were generated and meta-analyses performed in two parts to examine: (i) the probability of a datapoint being zero incidence compared to a nonzero incidence and (ii) the relationship between the predictors and nonzero LOE incidence.

Results: A sample of 15,494 studies were retrieved using the search criteria, with 53 studies meeting eligibility criteria. The pooled results from 4991 participants were included for analysis, with 4891 participants who had undergone ACLR. The proportion of included studies judged at an overall low risk of bias was small (7.8%). The observed group and study were the most important predictors for whether a datapoint reported an incidence of extension deficit. Time to follow-up (P < 0.001) and graft type (P = 0.02) were found to have a significant influence on nonzero LOE incidence (%). Covariate adjusted estimates of average LOE indicated 1 in 3 patients presenting with LOE at 12 month follow-up, reducing to 1 in 4 at 2 years.

Conclusions: This review examined the definitions for the measurement and interpretation of postoperative knee extension and established the trajectory of knee extension deficit after ACL injury and reconstruction. While factors associated with loss of extension were identified, the exact trajectory of knee extension deficits was difficult to infer due to discrepancies in measurement techniques and patient variation. On average, 1 in 3 patients may present with loss of extension of at least 3 degrees at 12-month follow-up, decreasing to 1 in 4 at 2 years. These results may be used by clinicians as an upper threshold for acceptable complication rates following ACLR. Future work should focus on LOE as a clinically relevant complication of ACL injury and treatment with appropriate attention to standardisation of definitions, measurements and better understanding of natural history.

Prospero registration number: CRD42018092295.

Level of evidence: Level I.

Keywords: ACLR; Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; Knee extension; Postoperative range of motion.

Publication types

  • Meta-Analysis
  • Systematic Review

MeSH terms

  • Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries* / complications
  • Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries* / surgery
  • Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction* / adverse effects
  • Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction* / methods
  • Humans
  • Incidence
  • Knee Joint / surgery
  • Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic