Synthetic augmentation in ACL reconstruction may reduce re-rupture rates and increase return-to-sport rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jiang, Yufei; Naghdi, Seyran; Smith, Nick; Smith, Toby; Metcalfe, Andrew; Mistry, Hema · Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc · 2025

meta_analysis · Level I

Where this comes from

Abstract

Synthetic augmentation (SA) in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) aims to enhance graft durability, but its benefits remain unclear. To evaluate whether SA in ACLR improves return-to-sport (RTS) rates, reduces graft failure, enhances patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and varies in effectiveness across materials and techniques. A systematic search of five databases was conducted until February 2025. Comparative studies were pooled using Hedges' random-effects meta-analysis with subgroup analysis based on materials and publication year. Non-comparative studies were analysed narratively. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions and the Cochrane risk-of-bias tools for randomised studies. Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence. Forty-seven studies were included (n = 4289): 7 randomised and 40 non-randomised studies (21 comparative; 19 non-comparative). SA systems included InternalBrace (FiberTape, 16 studies), Ligament Augmentation and Reconstruction System (polyester, 5), Ligament Augmentation Device (polyethylene, 18) and other materials (8). GRADE assessment showed moderate-certainty evidence for improved mid-term RTS rate from eight studies (odds ratio [OR]: 1.58; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.12-2.22; N = 716; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; p = 0.01). Internal brace showed a reduction in re-rupture rates in the long-term (OR: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.04-0.64; N = 218; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%; p = 0.01); however, pooled analysis of all techniques showed no statistically significant difference. Contemporary studies showed a better return to sport rates with SA. PROs showed no clinically meaningful differences. Non-comparative studies showed low graft failure rates (<8.7% for InternalBrace; <16.4% for other SA), high RTS rates (>90% for InternalBrace; >56.7% for other SA) and satisfactory PROs. SA, particularly InternalBrace, may improve RTS rates and reduce re-rupture risk, though PROs remain inconclusive. Findings are limited by a moderate-to-serious risk of bias, emphasising the need for high-quality research. Level III.

Medical subject headings