Article Text

Download PDFPDF
No evidence that remnant-preserving anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction ensures better proprioceptive function than a standard single-bundle reconstruction: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials
  1. Mandeep S Dhillon1,
  2. Sharad Prabhakar2,
  3. Kamal Bali3
  1. 1Department of Orthopedics, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
  2. 2Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India
  3. 3Department of Orthopaedics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  1. Correspondence to Dr Sharad Prabhakar, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh 160012, India; sharad.ortho{at}


Importance Injury to the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) causes significant mechanical instability and unequal functional deficits in patients with similar injury due to loss of proprioception. Therefore, the importance of the ACL remnant has been emphasised; it has the perceived potential to improve postoperative proprioception in knees with ACL reconstruction. However, the current literature shows unproven benefits of doing so, and thus the need for a systematic review.

Objective The purpose of this systematic review was to review published randomised control trials (RCTs) to determine whether a remnant-preserving ACL reconstruction offers any proprioceptive benefit over a standard single-bundle ACL reconstruction.

Evidence review The PRISMA checklist was used for all aspects of this systematic review. The PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane and HuGE databases were searched from their inception until 15 June 15 2016 with specific keywords. Trial registry databases were also searched.

Findings The initial search yielded 3081 articles. Out of these 2841 did not relate to the research question and were removed. The remaining 240 articles were screened for their abstracts. 178 articles which were either non-clinical studies or not related to ACL remnant preservation and proprioception were excluded. For the remaining 62 studies, full-text articles were studied and 57 were excluded from the study as they were not RCTs or dealt with remnant preservation techniques only in isolation or were non-comparative outcome studies or reviews. That left 5 RCTs. Out of these, 4 did not deal with proprioception as an outcome measure and were excluded. This left only 1 RCT by Hong et al available for the review.

Conclusions and relevance At present there is no direct evidence to favour or refute ACL remnant preservation at the time of reconstruction.

View Full Text

Statistics from


  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.