Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Apr 3;4(4):CD011166.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011166.pub2.

Surgical versus conservative interventions for treating anterior cruciate ligament injuries

A Paul Monk  1 , Loretta J Davies, Sally Hopewell, Kristina Harris, David J Beard, Andrew J Price
Affiliations

Surgical versus conservative interventions for treating anterior cruciate ligament injuries

A Paul Monk et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is a common injury, mainly affecting young, physically active individuals. The injury is characterised by joint instability, leading to decreased activity, which can lead to poor knee-related quality of life. It is also associated with increased risk of secondary osteoarthritis of the knee. It is unclear whether stabilising the knee surgically via ACL reconstruction produces a better overall outcome than non-surgical (conservative) treatment.

Objectives: To assess the effects of surgical versus conservative interventions for treating ACL injuries.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (18 January 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2016, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1946 to January Week 1 2016), MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations (18 January 2016), EMBASE (1974 to 15 January 2016), trial registers (February 2016) and reference lists.

Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials that compared the use of surgical and conservative interventions in participants with an ACL rupture. We included any trial that evaluated surgery for ACL reconstruction using any method of reconstruction, type of reconstruction technique, graft fixation or type of graft.

Data collection and analysis: Three review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts for potentially eligible studies, for which we then obtained full-text reports. Two authors then independently confirmed eligibility, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We used the GRADE approach to assess the overall quality of the evidence.

Main results: We identified one study in which 141 young, active adults with acute ACL injury were randomised to either ACL reconstruction followed by structured rehabilitation (results reported for 62 participants) or conservative treatment comprising structured rehabilitation alone (results reported for 59 participants). Built into the study design was a formal option for subsequent (delayed) ACL reconstruction in the conservative treatment group, if the participant requested surgery and met pre-specified criteria.This study was deemed at low risk of selection and reporting biases, at high risk of performance and detection biases because of the lack of blinding and at unclear risk of attrition bias because of an imbalance in the post-randomisation exclusions. According to GRADE methodology, the overall quality of the evidence was low across different outcomes.This study identified no difference in subjective knee score (measured using the average score on four of the five sub-scales of the KOOS score (range from 0 (extreme symptoms) to 100 (no symptoms)) between ACL reconstruction and conservative treatment at two years (difference in KOOS-4 change from baseline scores: MD -0.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.78 to 6.38; N = 121 participants; low-quality evidence), or at five years (difference in KOOS-4 final scores: MD -2.0, 95% CI -8.27 to 4.27; N = 120 participants; low-quality evidence). The total number of participants incurring one or more complications in each group was not reported; serious events reported in the surgery group were predominantly surgery-related, while those in conservative treatment group were predominantly knee instability. There were also incomplete data for total participants with treatment failure, including subsequent surgery. In the surgical group at two years, there was low-quality evidence of far fewer ACL-related treatment failures, when defined as either graft rupture or subsequent ACL reconstruction. This result is dominated by the uptake by 39% (23/59) of the participants in the conservative treatment group of ACL reconstruction for knee instability at two years and by 51% (30/59) of the participants at five years. There was low-quality evidence of little difference between the two groups in participants who had undergone meniscal surgery at anytime up to five years. There was low-quality evidence of no clinically important between-group differences in SF-36 physical component scores at two years. There was low-quality evidence of a higher return to the same or greater level of sport activity at two years in the ACL reconstruction group, but the wide 95% CI also included the potential for a higher return in the conservative treatment group. Based on an illustrative return to sport activities of 382 per 1000 conservatively treated patients, this amounts to an extra 84 returns per 1000 ACL-reconstruction patients (95% CI 84 fewer to 348 more). There was very low-quality evidence of a higher incidence of radiographically-detected osteoarthritis in the surgery group (19/58 (35%) versus 10/55 (18%)).

Authors' conclusions: For adults with acute ACL injuries, we found low-quality evidence that there was no difference between surgical management (ACL reconstruction followed by structured rehabilitation) and conservative treatment (structured rehabilitation only) in patient-reported outcomes of knee function at two and five years after injury. However, these findings need to be viewed in the context that many participants with an ACL rupture remained symptomatic following rehabilitation and later opted for ACL reconstruction surgery. Further research, including the two identified ongoing trials, will help to address the limitations in the current evidence, which is from one small trial in a young, active, adult population.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Andrew P Monk: none known. Sally Hopewell: none known. Kristina Harris: none known. Loretta J Davies: none known. David Beard: none known. Andrew Price: none known.

Four review authors (DB, LJD, APM, AP) are member of the trial management group of an ongoing trial (ACL SNNAP); arrangements will be made for independent review of this trial when completed.

Figures

1
1
Study flow diagram
2
2
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each 'Risk of bias' item for each included study.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 ACL reconstruction versus conservative treatment, Outcome 1 Patient‐rated knee function (KOOS‐4 score).
1.2
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1 ACL reconstruction versus conservative treatment, Outcome 2 Serious adverse events relating to the index knee at 2 years.
1.3
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1 ACL reconstruction versus conservative treatment, Outcome 3 Treatment failure (graft rupture or ACL reconstruction).
1.4
1.4. Analysis
Comparison 1 ACL reconstruction versus conservative treatment, Outcome 4 Meniscal surgery.
1.5
1.5. Analysis
Comparison 1 ACL reconstruction versus conservative treatment, Outcome 5 General health‐related quality of life (SF‐36 Physical and Mental scores).
1.6
1.6. Analysis
Comparison 1 ACL reconstruction versus conservative treatment, Outcome 6 Return to previous activity level (pre‐injury Tegner activity scale level).
1.7
1.7. Analysis
Comparison 1 ACL reconstruction versus conservative treatment, Outcome 7 Knee stability (KT‐1000 test) at 2 years (mm).
1.8
1.8. Analysis
Comparison 1 ACL reconstruction versus conservative treatment, Outcome 8 Knee stability (normal pivot shift or Lachman tests).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

References to studies included in this review

Frobell 2010b {published data only}
    1. Frobell RB, Roos EM, Roos HP, Ranstam J, Lohmander LS. A randomized trial of treatment for acute anterior cruciate ligament tears. New England Journal of Medicine 2010;363(4):331‐42. - PubMed
    1. Frobell RB, Roos HP, Roos EM, Roemer FW, Ranstam J, Lohmander LS. Treatment for acute anterior cruciate ligament tear: five year outcome of randomised trial. BMJ 2013;346(7895):232. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lohmander S. Surgical versus non‐surgical treatment of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries: a randomised prospective clinical trial. http://www.controlled‐trials.com/ISRCTN84752559 (accessed 18 January 2016).

References to studies excluded from this review

Andersson 1991 {published data only}
    1. Andersson C, Odensten M Gillquist J. Knee function after surgical or nonsurgical treatment of acute rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament: A randomized study with a long‐term follow up period. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 1991;(264):255‐63. - PubMed
    1. Andersson C, Odensten M, Good L, Gillquist J. Surgical or non‐surgical treatment of acute rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament. A randomized study with long‐term follow‐up. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery ‐ American Volume 1989;71(7):965‐74. - PubMed
    1. Meunier A, Odensten M, Good L. Long‐term results after primary repair or non‐surgical treatment of anterior cruciate ligament rupture: a randomized study with a 15‐year follow‐up. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports 2007;17:230‐7. - PubMed
    1. Odensten M, Hamberg P, Nordin M, Lysholm J, Gillquist J. Surgical or conservative treatment of the acutely torn anterior cruciate ligament. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 1985;(198):87‐93. - PubMed
    1. Odensten M, Hamberg P, Nordin M, Lysholm J, Gillquist J. Treatment of the acute torn anterior cruciate ligament: A randomized study with a short‐term follow‐up [abstract]. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica 1984;55(4):474.
Sandberg 1987 {published data only}
    1. Sandberg R, Balkfors B, Edwards P, Nilsson B, Westlin N. Surgical or non‐surgical treatment of ligamentous knee injuries. A randomized controlled study ‐ early results [abstract]. Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavica 1986;57:254.
    1. Sandberg R, Balkfors B, Nilsson B, Westlin N. Operative versus non‐operative treatment of recent injuries to the ligaments of the knee. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery ‐ American Volume 1987;69(8):1120‐6. - PubMed

References to ongoing studies

ACL SNNAP {published data only}
    1. Beard D. The ACL SNNAP trial: Comparison of the clinical and cost effectiveness of two management strategies for non‐acute anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury: rehabilitation versus surgical reconstruction. http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/projects/hta/1414063 (accessed 18 January 2016).
NTR2746 {unpublished data only}
    1. Eggerding V. Cost‐effectiveness of two treatment strategies of an anterior cruciate ligament rupture. A randomized clinical study. www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=2746 (accessed 30 March 2015). [Trial Registration number: NTR2746]

Additional references

Ajuied 2013
    1. Ajuied A, Wong F, Smith C, Norris M, Earnshaw P, Back D, et al. Anterior cruciate ligament injury and radiologic progression of knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. American Journal of Sports Medicine 2014;42(9):2242‐52. - PubMed
Bahr 2003
    1. Bahr R, Holme I. Risk factors for sports injuries: a methodological approach. British Journal of Sports Medicine 2003;37(5):384‐92. - PMC - PubMed
Bowers 2005
    1. Bowers AL, Spindler KP, McCarty EC, Arrigain S. Height, weight, and BMI predict intra‐articular injuries observed during ACL reconstruction: evaluation of 456 cases from a prospective ACL database. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine 2005;15(2):9‐13. - PubMed
Brooks 1996
    1. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996;37:53‐72. - PubMed
Collins 2013
    1. Collins JE, Katz JN, Donnell‐Fink LA, Martin SD, Losina E. Cumulative incidence of ACL reconstruction after ACL injury in adults: role of age, sex and race. American Journal of Sports Medicine 2013;41(3):544‐9. - PMC - PubMed
Crawford 2007
    1. Crawford R, Walley G, Bridgman S. Magnetic resonance imaging versus arthroscopy in the diagnosis of knee pathology, concentrating on meniscal lesions and ACL tears: A systematic review. British Medical Bulletin 2007;84:5‐23. - PubMed
Delincé 2012
    1. Delincé P, Ghafil D. Anterior cruciate ligament tears: conservative or surgical treatment? A critical review of the literature. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 2012;20(1):48‐61. - PubMed
Frobell 2010a
    1. Frobell RB, Roos EM, Roos HP, Ranstam J, Lohmander LS. A randomized trial of treatment for acute anterior cruciate ligament tears. New England Journal of Medicine 2010;363:331‐42. - PubMed
Frobell 2013
    1. Frobell RB, Roos HP, Roos EM, Roemer FW, Ranstam J, Lohmander LS. Treatment for acute anterior cruciate ligament tear: five year outcome of randomised trial. BMJ 2013;346:f232. - PMC - PubMed
Gianotti 2009
    1. Gianotti SM, Marshall SW, Hume PA, Bunt L. Incidence of anterior cruciate ligament injury and other knee ligament injuries: a national population‐based study. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 2009;12(6):622‐7. - PubMed
Hefti 1993
    1. Hefti F, Muller W, Jakob RP, Staubli HU. Evaluation of knee ligament injuries with the IKDC form. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 1993;1(3‐4):226‐34. - PubMed
Hernandez 2006
    1. Hernandez L, Micheo W, Amy E. Rehabilitation update for the anterior cruciate ligament injured patient: Current concepts. Boletin de la Asociacion Medica de Puerto Rico 2006;98(1):62‐72. - PubMed
Hewett 2006
    1. Hewett TE, Myer GD, Ford KR. Anterior cruciate ligament injuries in female athletes: Part 1, mechanisms and risk factors. American Journal of Sports Medicine 2006;34(2):299‐311. - PubMed
Higgins 2011
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Irrgang 2001
    1. Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL, Harner CD, Kurosaka M, Neyret P, et al. Development and validation of the international knee documentation committee subjective knee form. American Journal of Sports Medicine 2001;29(5):600‐13. - PubMed
Kostogiannis 2007
    1. Kostogiannis I, Ageberg E, Neuman P, Dahlberg L, Friden T, Roos H. Activity level and subjective knee function 15 years after anterior cruciate ligament injury: a prospective, longitudinal study of nonreconstructed patients. American Journal of Sports Medicine 2007;25(7):1135‐43. - PubMed
Kvist 2004
    1. Kvist J. Rehabilitation following anterior cruciate ligament injury: current recommendations for sports participation. Sports Medicine 2004;34(4):269‐80. - PubMed
Lefebvre 2011
    1. Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J. Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Linko 2009
    1. Linko E, Harilainen A, Malmivaara A, Seitsalo S. Surgical versus conservative interventions for anterior cruciate ligament ruptures in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2005, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001356.pub3] - DOI - PubMed
Lohmander 2007
    1. Lohmander S, Englund PM, Dahl LL, Roos EW. The long‐term consequence of anterior cruciate ligament and meniscus injuries. American Journal of Sports Medicine 2007;35(10):1756‐69. - PubMed
Lysholm 1982
    1. Lysholm J, Gillquist J. Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale. American Journal of Sports Medicine 1982;10(3):150‐4. - PubMed
Micheo 2010
    1. Micheo W, Hernandez L, Seda C. Evaluation, management, rehabilitation, and prevention of anterior cruciate ligament injury: Current concepts. American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2010;2(10):935‐44. - PubMed
Miyasaka 1991
    1. Miyasaka KC, Daniel DM, Stone ML, Hirschman P. The incidence of knee ligament injuries in the general population. American Journal of Knee Surgery 1991;4:43‐8.
Mohtadi 1998
    1. Mohtadi N. Development and validation of the quality of life outcome measure (questionnaire) for chronic anterior cruciate ligament deficiency. American Journal of Sports Medicine 1998;3(26):350‐9. - PubMed
Mohtadi 2011
    1. Mohtadi NG, Chan DS, Dainty KN, Whelan DB. Patellar tendon versus hamstring tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament rupture in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 9. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005960.pub2] - DOI - PMC - PubMed
Negus 2012
    1. Negus J, Fransen M, Chen JS, Parker DA, March L. Exercise‐based interventions for conservatively or surgically treated anterior cruciate ligament injuries in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012, Issue 10. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010128] - DOI
Ramski 2013
    1. Ramski DE, Kanj WW, Franklin CC, Baldwin KD, Ganley TJ. Anterior cruciate ligament tears in children and adolescents: a meta‐analysis of nonoperative versus operative treatment. American Journal of Sports Medicine 2013 Dec 4 [Epub ahead of print]. - PubMed
RevMan 2012 [Computer program]
    1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager. Version 5.2. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012.
Roos 1998
    1. Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)‐‐development of a self‐administered outcome measure. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physiotherapy 1998;28(2):88‐96. - PubMed
Rout 2013
    1. Rout R, McDonnell S, Hulley P, Jayadev C, Khan T, Carr A, et al. The pattern of cartilage damage in antero‐medial osteoarthritis of the knee and its relationship to the anterior cruciate ligament. Journal of Orthopaedic Research 2013;31(6):908‐13. - PubMed
Smith 2014
    1. Smith TO, Postle K, Penny F, McNamara I, Mann CJV. Is reconstruction the best management strategy for anterior cruciate ligament rupture? A systematic review and meta‐analysis comparing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction versus non‐operative treatment. Knee 2014;21(2):462–70. - PubMed
Spindler 2004
    1. Spindler KP, Kuhn JE, Freedman KB, Matthews CE, Dittus RS, Harrell FE Jr. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction autograft choice: bone‐tendon‐bone versus hamstring: does it really matter? A systematic review. American Journal of Sports Medicine 2004;32(8):1986‐95. - PubMed
Spindler 2008
    1. Spindler KP, Wright RW. Clinical practice. Anterior cruciate ligament tear. New England Journal of Medicine 2008;359(20):135‐42. - PMC - PubMed
Tegner 1985
    1. Tegner Y, Lysholm J. Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 1985;(198):43‐9. - PubMed
Thorstensson 2009
    1. Thorstensson CA, Lohmander LS, Frobell RB, Roos EM, Gooberman‐Hill R. Choosing surgery: patients' preferences within a trial of treatments for anterior cruciate ligament injury. A qualitative study. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 2009;10:100. - PMC - PubMed
Ware 1992
    1. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36‐item short‐form health survey (SF‐36). Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care 1992;30(6):473‐83. - PubMed
Øiestad 2009
    1. Øiestad BE, Engebretsen L, Storheim K, Risberg MA. Knee osteoarthritis after anterior cruciate ligament injury. American Journal of Sports Medicine 2009;37(7):1434‐43. - PubMed

References to other published versions of this review

Monk 2014
    1. Monk AP, Hopewell S, Harris K, Davies LJ, Beard D, Price A. Surgical versus conservative interventions for treating anterior cruciate ligament injuries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 14, Issue 6. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011166] - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms