ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2020
Large variation in indications, preferred surgical technique and rehabilitation protocol for primary anterior cruciate ligament repair: a survey among ESSKA members.
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 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Primary repair of proximal anterior cruciate ligament injury: a global expert consensus statement.Burns & trauma · 2025Article
- Anatomic Arthroscopic Primary Repair of Proximal Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tears.Arthroscopy techniques · 2023Article
- Trends in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair: A Bibliometric and Visualized Analysis.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2022Article
- Primary Repair versus Reconstruction in Patients with Bilateral Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries: What Do Patients Prefer?Advances in orthopedics · 2022Article
- Suture tape augmentation improves laxity of MCL repair in the ACL reconstructed knee.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2021Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess current surgical preferences and practice patterns regarding primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair among European Society for Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy (ESSKA) members.
methodsA web-based survey was designed, including questions regarding indications for primary repair, outcomes of primary repair, and rehabilitation protocols. An invitation for study participation was sent by email to all ESSKA e-mail contacts. Descriptive statistics were performed.
resultsA total of 169 surgeons responded to the survey (7% response rate of active members). Lack of supporting scientific evidence is the main reason for not using repair as a surgical treatment (63%). Most important indications were proximal avulsion tears (84%), younger age (49%), and older age (34%). Among those currently utilizing repair as a treatment option, transosseous tunnel fixation repair (34%) and repair with internal brace using transosseous tunnel fixation (32%) were the most preferred techniques. Eleven percent indicated dynamic intraligamentary stabilization as their preferred technique. A similar rate of progression for rehabilitation for repair and reconstruction techniques was noted among respondents.
conclusionThis practice survey shows that the majority of surgeons indicated the main reason for not incorporating primary repair in their current practices was a lack of supporting scientific evidence. Among those holding favourable attitudes and beliefs, most surgeons indicated patients with proximal tears, younger-aged, and older-aged patients might be eligible for repair. Prospective studies with higher levels of evidence are warranted to establish guidelines for repair, including indications, optimal surgical technique, and rehabilitation protocols. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V (expert opinion).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.