ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2020
Re-revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction showed more laxity than revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction at a minimum 2-year follow-up.
Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Multiple revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: not the best but still good.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023Pooled it
- Body Mass Index and the Risk of Repeat Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Failure.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
- Posterior tibial slope has no impact on treatment outcome in anterior cruciate ligament revision patients.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Good stability and mid-term subjective outcomes after repeated anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision surgery using allografts.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023Article
- Nonoperative Treatment for Traumatic Partial Graft Rupture After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A 2-Year Follow-up Study.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2023Article
- Return to Sport After Revision ACL Reconstruction: A Comparative Cohort Study of Outcomes After Single- Versus Multiple-Revision Surgeries.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2022Article
- Etiology of Failed Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: a Scoping Review.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2022Article
- Functional results of multiple revision anterior cruciate ligament with anterolateral tibial tunnel associated with anterolateral ligament reconstruction.Knee surgery & related research · 2022Article
- Posterior Tibial Slope in Patients With Torn ACL Reconstruction Grafts Compared With Primary Tear or Native ACL: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2022Review
- [Clinical application of slope-reducing tibial osteotomy and anterior cruciate ligament revision in patients with abnormally increased posterior tibial slope].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2022Article
- Risk factors of cartilage lesion after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2022Review
- Quadriceps tendon autograft is becoming increasingly popular in revision ACL reconstruction.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2022Article
- A high tibial slope, allograft use, and poor patient-reported outcome scores are associated with multiple ACL graft failures.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2022Article
- Revision of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a pedicled quadruple hamstring autograft.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2020Article
- Healthy knee KT1000 measurements of anterior tibial translation have significant variation.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to compare patient demographics, associated lesions (concurrent meniscal and chondral injuries), and clinical outcomes between revision and re-revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions.
methodsPatients who underwent revision or re-revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction between 2008 and 2016 with a minimum 2-year follow-up were retrospectively evaluated. Detailed patient demographic data, radiographic preoperative tunnel diameters, posterior tibia slope, and concurrent meniscal and chondral lesion were reviewed. Clinical scores and laxity tests' results were compared between the groups at the last follow-up.
resultsEighty-two patients (mean age, 33.8 ± 9.9 years; revision group, n = 62; re-revision group, n = 20) were included. The re-revision group showed a higher grade for preoperative arthritis (P < 0.001); more severe preoperative bone defects of the femoral (13.8 ± 2.6 vs 11.7 ± 2.7 mm, P = 0.004) and tibial tunnels (14.6 ± 2.4 vs 13.0 ± 2.3 mm, P = 0.010); and a higher prevalence of subtotal medial meniscectomy (P = 0.008) and chondral defects of the medial (P = 0.006) and lateral femoral condyles (P < 0.001), patella (P = 0.040), and trochlea (P = 0.036). At the final follow-up, the clinical scores did not differ significantly between the groups. However, the re-revision group showed more instability in the anterior drawer (P = 0.001), Lachman (P < 0.001), and pivot-shift (P < 0.001) tests, while a side-to-side difference was observed on the Telos stress radiographs (7.1 ± 4.7 vs 4.9 ± 3.7 mm, P = 0.038).
conclusionThese findings showed that the patients who underwent re-revision had poor prognostic factors as compared with those who underwent revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Although the clinical scores did not differ significantly between the groups, the re-revision group showed more laxity at the 2-year follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Cohort study; IV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31384982What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.