ArticleJournal of orthopaedics
ACL repair for athletes?
Article in Journal of orthopaedics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Auditory-cued terminal knee extension enhances vastus medialis motor unit function in the early phase following ACL reconstruction: a randomized controlled trial.Knee surgery & related research · 2026Article
- Contraindications to Lateral Extra-Articular Tenodesis: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is associated with increased corticospinal excitability and rate of force development.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Zlig ligament reconstruction versus tibial plateau leveling osteotomy for cranial cruciate ligament rupture in dogs: a prospective controlled study.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Neuromusculoskeletal alterations after ACL reconstruction: a cross-sectional study of cortical activity, motor response, and psychological readiness.BMC sports science, medicine & rehabilitation · 2025Article
- Arthroscopic ACL repair with suture tape augmentation: clinical, functional, and gait analysis outcomes at minimum 3-year follow-up.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2024Article
- Analysis of the current status of rehabilitation motivation and its influencing factors in older adults with stroke: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2023Article
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The current gold standard treatment for an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear in an athlete is an arthroscopic ACL reconstruction with autografts. This restores the knee stability but is associated with unique complications like graft re-tear, kinesiophobia and graft donor site morbidity. ACL suture repair (ACLSR) is an attractive alternative method of surgical management of this injury. Current science of ACLSR: The potential advantages of performing a repair are the preservation of native biology and proprioceptive function of ACL, elimination of a graft and preservation of bone stock. The purported benefits are better stability, reduction of kinesiophobia and faster rehabilitation. ACLSR is now performed only for proximal (femoral-sided) tears in the acute phase, when the tissue quality is good and using high-strength nonabsorbable sutures. There are several techniques for performing ACLSR but broadly speaking are either non-augmented, static augmented with suture tape, dynamic augmented or using bio-scaffolds. Clinical outcome of ACLSR: There is a lot of literature on ACLSRs including case series, cohort studies and randomized controlled trials. The results from these studies are encouraging but mostly pertain to patient reported outcome measures, are in small numbers and in the short-term. The results are also inconsistent across different studies and not specifically performed for the athletic population. Moreover, most of these studies are from the innovator or designer surgeons and groups and have not been independently validated. Conclusion: Currently, there is insufficient evidence to recommend ACLSR as a preferred method of managing even acute proximal tears in athletes. Improved rates of return to sports, lower retear rate and lesser kinesiophobia needs to be proven in athletes.
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.