ObjectiveWe compared long-term follow-up from surgical versus non-surgical treatment of ACL rupture regarding radiographic knee osteoarthritis (OA), secondary surgery, laxity and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesEmbase, MEDLINE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library databases.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesStudies directly comparing the minimally invasive surgical (arthroscopy or miniarthrotomy) and non-surgical treatment of ACL rupture with at least 10 years of follow-up in adult patients were included.ResultsFive studies met the eligibility criteria. A meta-analysis revealed a higher risk of radiographic knee OA and a lower risk of secondary meniscal surgery for patients in the surgical group. The risk of graft rupture/secondary ACL revision and secondary ACL reconstruction was equal in the surgical and non-surgical groups. Knee laxity was lower among patients in the surgical group in four studies. No difference was found in the PROMs (ie, International Knee Documentation Committee, Tegner, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome, and Lysholm scores).ConclusionThe risk of radiographic knee OA was higher, but the risk of secondary meniscal injury was lower 10 years after surgical treatment of ACL rupture. The risk of graft rupture/secondary ACL revision or secondary reconstruction was unrelated to treatment type. The degree of knee laxity was reduced after surgical treatment in comparison with non-surgical treatment, while PROMs were similar. However, due to the methodological challenges highlighted in this systematic review, these findings must be interpreted with caution.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019119468

Background: Studies with less than 10 years of follow-up have demonstrated no difference between surgical and non-surgical treatment after an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture; however, long-term effects remain unclear. The aim of this study was to compare the risk of long-term secondary surgical procedures after primary surgical and non-surgical treatment for ACL ruptures. Methods: Patients aged 18-35, registered in the Danish National Patient Registry with an ACL rupture between January 1, 1996 and December 31, 2000 with a minimum of 20 years follow-up were included. The surgically treated group was defined as receiving an ACL reconstruction within 1 year after diagnosis. Major secondary surgical procedures were defined as subsequent ACL surgeries (reconstruction/revision), arthroplasty, deep infection, arthrodesis, or amputation. Minor secondary surgical procedures were defined as meniscal surgery, synovectomy, and manipulation under anesthesia (MUA). Multivariate regression analysis was performed to assess relative risk (RR), adjusted for age and sex. The results are reported with 95% confidence intervals. Results: 7,539 patients had an ACL rupture; 1,970 patients were surgically treated. In the surgically treated group, 5.9% of patients underwent major secondary surgeries; this was 6.1% in the non-surgically treated group, yielding an adjusted RR of 1.05 (0.85;1.30). There were 43.9% minor secondary surgeries in the surgically treated group and 49.1% in the non-surgically treated group, yielding an adjusted RR of 1.29 (1.20;1.39). Conclusions: No significant differences in the rate of major secondary surgical procedures between the groups, the non-surgical group was associated with a higher risk of minor secondary surgeries.