ReviewKnee surgery & related research2020
Comparison of clinical outcomes and second-look arthroscopic evaluations between anterior cruciate ligament anteromedial bundle augmentation and single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
Review in Knee surgery & related research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction results in improved graft synovial coverage and stability, while remnant-preserving techniques further enhance synovialization: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Pooled it
- Early degenerative changes are different between partial and complete anterior cruciate ligament injury and associate with joint instability in a skeletally immature porcine model.Osteoarthritis and cartilage · 2025Article
- Is augmentation the best solution in partial anterior cruciate ligament tears? A literature systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedics · 2023Review
- The importance of continuous remnant preservation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2022Article
- Selective bundle versus complete anterior-cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedicsReview
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
subjectThis study compared clinical outcomes and second-look arthroscopic evaluations between anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) anteromedial (AM) bundle augmentation and single-bundle ACL reconstruction. PURPOSE: We compared the clinical results and the second-look arthroscopic findings between (1) single-bundle ACL reconstruction in complete rupture and (2) ACL AM bundle augmentation in isolated AM bundle rupture. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo groups of patients underwent ACL surgery from January 2013 to December 2018. Group 1, who had 64 cases of single-bundle ACL reconstruction with second-look arthroscopy, and Group 2, who had 21 cases of AM bundle augmentation of ACL with second-look arthroscopy, were targeted. We evaluated and compared the clinical results (Lysholm score, Tegner activity score, Lachman test, and pivot-shift test) and synovialization at second-look arthroscopy before the operation and in the final follow-up period, between Group 1 and Group 2.
resultsThe Lysholm score (p = 0.96) and Tegner activity score (p = 0.351) at final follow-up (mean 27.1 months) were 78.3 and 7.2 in Group 1 and 89.1 and 8.1 in Group 2, respectively. The Lachman test (p = 0.074) and pivot-shift test (p = 0.031) results at final follow-up were improved; however, there was no statistical significance. Second-look arthroscopy showed that percentages of synovialization area of grafted tendon at mean 15.6 months follow-up were 61.4% and 93.1% in Group 1 and Group 2, respectively (p = 0.008). The synovial coverage in Group 2 was higher than in Group 1.
conclusionThe AM bundle augmentation for ACL injury in which the posterolateral bundle was preserved showed better clinical scores and synovial coverage than single-bundle ACL reconstruction for complete ACL rupture. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: The level of evidence is Level III, retrospective with case series.
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.