Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34556187›Full record

ReviewKnee surgery & related research2021

Clinical outcomes of combined anterior cruciate ligament and anterolateral ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Diego Ariel de Lima, Lana Lacerda de Lima, Nayara Gomes Reis de Souza, Rodrigo Amorim de Moraes Perez, Marcel Faraco Sobrado, Tales Mollica Guimarães, Camilo Partezani Helito

Registry-linked trialOpen access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Knee surgery & related research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07451743 (Are Clinical Outcomes Unchanged by ALL Fixation at 0° or 30° of Knee Flexion in Combined ACL-ALL Reconstruction?), which is not on this map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

NCT07451743 nanot yet recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Are Clinical Outcomes Unchanged by ALL Fixation at 0° or 30° of Knee Flexion in Combined ACL-ALL Reconstruction?

TypeinterventionalSponsorASL LecceRan2026 to 2029Enrolled100ConditionsAnterior Cruciate Ligament RuptureArmsanterolateral ligament reconstruction
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Diego Ariel de LimaUFERSA, Universidade Federal Rural do Semi-Árido, R. Francisco Mota, 572, Pres. Costa e Silva, Mossoró, RN, CEP: 59625-900, Brazil. arieldelima.diego@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5702-1529
Lana Lacerda de LimaUFERSA, Universidade Federal Rural do Semi-Árido, R. Francisco Mota, 572, Pres. Costa e Silva, Mossoró, RN, CEP: 59625-900, Brazil.
Nayara Gomes Reis de SouzaHospital Tarcísio Maia, Mossoró, Brazil.
Rodrigo Amorim de Moraes PerezReal Hospital Português, Recife, Brazil.
Marcel Faraco SobradoUSP, Grupo de Joelho, Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital das Clínicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Tales Mollica GuimarãesUSP, Grupo de Joelho, Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital das Clínicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Camilo Partezani HelitoUSP, Grupo de Joelho, Instituto de Ortopedia e Traumatologia, Hospital das Clínicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo · BRHospital de Base · BRReal Hospital Português · BRUniversidade Federal Rural do Semi-Árido · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo compare the clinical outcomes of isolated anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with combined reconstruction of the ACL and anterolateral ligament (ALL) of the knee.

methodsA search was conducted on the PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases, in line with the PRISMA protocol. The indexation terms used were "anterior cruciate ligament" OR "acl" AND "anterolateral ligament" AND "reconstruction." Articles that compared patients submitted to combined ACL and ALL reconstruction with those submitted to isolated reconstruction of the ACL, with levels of evidence I, II, and III, were included. Studies with follow-up of less than 2 years and articles that did not use "anatomical" techniques for ALL reconstruction, such as extraarticular tenodesis, were excluded. A meta-analysis with R software was conducted, with a random effects model, presented as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD), with a 95% confidence level (CI) and statistically significant at p < 0.05.

resultsTen articles were selected, with a total of 1495 patients, most of whom were men, of whom 674 submitted to ACL and ALL reconstruction and 821 to isolated ACL reconstruction. Combined ACL and ALL reconstruction exhibited a statistically significant advantage in residual pivot shift (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.24-0.47, I

conclusionsCombined ACL and ALL reconstruction obtained better postoperative clinical outcomes when compared with isolated ACL reconstruction, especially in reducing residual pivot shift and rerupture rate.

Indexed as

Anterior cruciate ligamentAnterolateral ligamentClinical outcomesCombined reconstructionIsolated reconstruction

Identifiers

PMID34556187
PMCPMC8461945
OpenAlexW3199653736

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.