Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35174403›Full record

SynthesisKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2022

Single and double bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction yield comparable clinical and functional outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Nikolas L Krott, Lawrence Wengle, Daniel Whelan, Michael Wild, Marcel Betsch

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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.

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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. [Progress in prevention and treatment of knee laxity after posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Nikolas L KrottDepartment of Orthopaedics, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany. niko.krott@gmx.de.
Lawrence WengleWomen's College Hospital, University of Toronto Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Program (UTOSM), Toronto, ON, Canada.
Daniel WhelanWomen's College Hospital, University of Toronto Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Program (UTOSM), Toronto, ON, Canada.
Michael WildDepartment of Orthopaedics Trauma and Hand Surgery, Klinikum Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany.
Marcel BetschDepartment of Orthopedics and Trauma Surgery, University Hospital Mannheim, Medical Faculty of the University Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany.
University of Toronto · CAKlinikum Darmstadt · DERWTH Aachen University · DEUniversity Hospital Heidelberg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo perform a systematic review and compare the functional and objective outcomes after single-bundle (SB) vs. double-bundle (DB) posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (PCLR). Where possible to pool outcomes and arrive at summary estimates of treatment effect for DB PCLR vs. SB PCLR via an embedded meta-analysis.

methodsA comprehensive PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) literature search identified 13 eligible studies evaluating clinical outcomes of both techniques for PCLR. Clinical outcome measures included in the meta-analysis were functional outcomes (Lysholm Score, Tegner Activity Scale) and objective measurements of posterior laxity of the operated knee (arthrometer and stress radiographs).

resultsThe meta-analysis included 603 patients. Three hundred and fifteen patients were treated with SB and two hundred and eighty-eight patients with DB PCLR. There were no significant differences between SB and DB PCLR in postoperative functional Lysholm Scores (CI [- 0.18, 0.17]), Tegner Activity Scales (CI [- 0.32, 0.12]) and IKDC objective grades (CI [- 0.13, 1.17]). Regarding posterior stability using KT-1000 and Kneelax III arthrometer measurements, there were no differences between the SB and DB group. However, double-bundle reconstruction provided better objective outcome of measurement of posterior laxity (CI [0.02, 0.46]) when measured with Telos stress radiography.

conclusionA systematic review was conducted to identify current best evidence pertaining to DB and SB PCLR. An embedded meta-analysis arrived at similar summary estimates of treatment effect for motion, stability and overall function for both techniques. There is no demonstrable clinically relevant difference between techniques based on the currently available evidence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Indexed as

Anterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesJoint InstabilityPosterior Cruciate LigamentPosterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionHumansKnee JointLysholm Knee ScoreTreatment OutcomeDouble-bundleMeta-analysisOutcome measuresPosterior cruciate ligamentSingle-bundle

Identifiers

PMID35174403
OpenAlexW4213129873

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.