ReviewOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2021
Clinical Outcome Evaluation of Anatomic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Tunnel Positioning Using Gold Standard Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of Graft Bending Angle on the Tensile Behavior of Bone Tunnel-Graft Constructs for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Graft.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Influence of Area Deprivation Index and Social Vulnerability Index on PROMIS Outcomes and MCID Achievement Following ACL Reconstruction.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
- All-Inside and Conventional Techniques in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Retrospective Comparison Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Location of the Anatomic Footprint Centers of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Determined by Quadrant Method on Three-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Imaging.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2024Article
- Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in patients aged 60 years and older.Asia-Pacific journal of sports medicine, arthroscopy, rehabilitation and technology · 2024Article
- Usefulness of 3-Dimensional Computed Tomography Assessment of Femoral Tunnel after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Review
- Excellent short-term results of dome-shaped high tibial osteotomy combined with all-inside anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Femoral Tunnel Geometry and Graft Inclination Angles in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using a Flexible Reamer System.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Posteriorly positioned femoral grafts decrease long-term failure in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, femoral and tibial graft positions did not affect long-term reported outcome.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere have been conflicting results about the theoretical advantages of anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical and functional outcomes comparing anatomic single- versus double-bundle techniques, anatomic versus nonanatomic techniques, and transportal versus outside-in tunnel drilling for ACL reconstruction. STUDY
designSystematic review; Level of evidence, 3.
methodsA search was performed in the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases up to August 2018 for clinical trials comparing anatomic ACL reconstruction (with tunnel positioning demonstrated using gold standard radiologic techniques) with another technique, with a minimum functional and biomechanical follow-up of 6 months. A meta-analysis was performed to compare clinical and functional outcomes between anatomic single- versus double-bundle reconstruction and between anatomic versus nonanatomic techniques, using the risk difference or the mean difference. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort and case-control studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and Jadad Score for randomized controlled trials.
resultsIncluded were 15 studies comprising 1290 patients (follow-up, 12-36 months). No significant differences favoring anatomic double-bundle over anatomic single-bundle reconstruction or outside-in over transportal techniques were found. The meta-analyses showed significant differences in the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) objective score (risk difference, -0.14; 95% confidence interval, -0.27 to -0.01) favoring anatomic over nonanatomic reconstruction. No statistically significant differences were found between anatomic and nonanatomic surgical techniques on other functional scores or clinical examination outcomes, including the IKDC subjective score, Lysholm score, Tegner score, KT-1000 arthrometer test, or pivot-shift test.
conclusionDouble-bundle reconstruction was not superior to the single-bundle technique in clinical and functional outcomes. Anatomic ACL reconstruction shows significantly superior results over nonanatomic ACL reconstruction, reinforcing the anatomic technique as the gold standard choice for clinical practice.
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.