Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31471726›Full record

SynthesisKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2020

Anatomic ACL reconstruction reduces risk of post-traumatic osteoarthritis: a systematic review with minimum 10-year follow-up.

Benjamin B Rothrauff, Ahmed Jorge, Darren de Sa, Jeffrey Kay, Freddie H Fu, Volker Musahl

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 44 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

44 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Standardizing ACL tunnel placement: an automated method for knee quadrant computation.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Benjamin B RothrauffDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, UPMC Freddie Fu Sports Medicine Center, University of Pittsburgh, 3200 S. Water St., Pittsburgh, PA, 15203, USA.
Ahmed JorgeDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, UPMC Freddie Fu Sports Medicine Center, University of Pittsburgh, 3200 S. Water St., Pittsburgh, PA, 15203, USA.
Darren de SaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, UPMC Freddie Fu Sports Medicine Center, University of Pittsburgh, 3200 S. Water St., Pittsburgh, PA, 15203, USA.
Jeffrey KayDivision of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Freddie H FuDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, UPMC Freddie Fu Sports Medicine Center, University of Pittsburgh, 3200 S. Water St., Pittsburgh, PA, 15203, USA.
Volker MusahlDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, UPMC Freddie Fu Sports Medicine Center, University of Pittsburgh, 3200 S. Water St., Pittsburgh, PA, 15203, USA. musahlv@upmc.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo systematically review the literature for radiographic prevalence of osteoarthritis (OA) at a minimum of 10 years following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) with anatomic vs. non-anatomic techniques. It was hypothesized that the incidence of OA at long-term follow-up would be lower following anatomic compared to non-anatomic ACLR.

methodsA systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, for studies reporting OA prevalence by radiographic classification scales at a minimum of 10 years following ACLR with autograft. Studies were categorized as anatomic if they met or exceeded a score of 8 according the Anatomic ACL Reconstruction Scoring Checklist (AARSC), while those with a score less than 8 were categorized as non-anatomic/non-specified. Secondary outcomes included graft failure and measures of knee stability (KT-1000, Pivot Shift) and functional outcomes [Lysholm, Tegner, subjective and objective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores]. OA prevalence on all radiographic scales was recorded and adapted to a normalized scale.

resultsTwenty-six studies were included, of which 5 achieved a score of 8 on the AARSC. Using a normalized OA classification scale, 87 of 375 patients (23.2%) had diagnosed OA at a mean follow-up of 15.3 years after anatomic ACLR and 744 of 1696 patients (43.9%) had OA at mean follow-up of 15.9 years after non-anatomic/non-specified ACLR. The AARSC scores were 9.2 ± 1.3 for anatomic ACLR and 5.1 ± 1.1 for non-anatomic/non-specified ACLR. Secondary outcomes were relatively similar between techniques but inconsistently reported.

conclusionsThis study showed that anatomic ACLR, defined as an AARSC score ≥ 8, was associated with lower OA prevalence at long-term follow-up. Additional studies reporting long-term outcomes following anatomic ACLR are needed, as high-level studies of anatomic ACLR are lacking. The AARSC is a valuable resource in performing and evaluating anatomic ACLR. Anatomic ACLR, as defined by the AARSC, may reduce the long-term risk of post-traumatic OA following ACL injury to a greater extent than non-anatomic ACLR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Indexed as

Anterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionAnterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesChecklistFollow-Up StudiesHumansKnee InjuriesKnee JointOrthopedicsOsteoarthritis, KneePostoperative ComplicationsPrevalenceTreatment OutcomeACL reconstructionAnatomicAnterior cruciate ligamentChecklistOsteoarthritis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.