Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35485559›Full record

Trial reportUlusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES2022

Does anterolateral ligament internal bracing improve the outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in patients with generalized joint hypermobility?

Mehmet Berkin Toker, Tunay Erden, Ali Toprak, Ömer Faruk Taşer

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Application of internal brace ligament augmentation technique in knee ligament injury: a systematic review.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mehmet Berkin TokerDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Acıbadem Fulya Hospital Sports Medicine Center, İstanbul-Turkey.
Tunay ErdenDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Acıbadem Fulya Hospital Sports Medicine Center, İstanbul-Turkey.
Ali ToprakDepartment of Biostatistics and Medical Informatics, Bezmialem Vakıf University Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul-Turkey.
Ömer Faruk TaşerDepartment of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Acıbadem Fulya Hospital Sports Medicine Center, İstanbul-Turkey.
Sema Hospital · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGeneralized joint hypermobility (GJH) is a risk factor for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury and ACL graft failure and is considered an indication for anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare functional outcomes, rupture rates, and residual instability in patients with GJH undergoing isolated ACL reconstruction or combined ACL reconstruction and ALL augmentation with internal bracing (ALL-IB).

methodsSixty-eight patients with GJH and unilateral ACL injury were randomly assigned to undergo either isolated ACL reconstruction (Group 1) or combined ACL reconstruction and ALL-IB (Group 2). The patients were evaluated pre- and postoperatively; their medical histories; physical examination results; anterior knee translation, as measured using the KT-1000 arthrometer; and scores of validated knee assessments were recorded.

resultsGroups 1 and 2 consisted of 37 and 31 patients, respectively. The mean follow-up was 30.1±4.1 and 28.1±2.9 months, respectively. In the final evaluation, the patients in Group 2 showed better rotational stability, as evaluated by the pivot-shift test (p=0.013); better anteroposterior stability, as evaluated by KT-1000 arthrometry (p=0.001); similar function (p=0.14 for the Lysholm, p=0.11 for the Cincinnati, and p=0.19 for the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score); and failure rate (p=0.41).

conclusionThe functional outcomes were similar between the groups. The stability outcomes after combined ACL and ALL-IB were better than those after isolated ACL reconstruction in patients with GJH. However, the technique and its results need to be validated in larger patient series and prospective randomized controlled trials.

Indexed as

Anterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesAnterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionJoint InstabilityAnterior Cruciate LigamentHumansProspective StudiesRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID35485559
PMCPMC10493536
OpenAlexW4214539028

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.