ReviewArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2022
Primary Repair, Reconstruction, and Suture Tape Augmentation All Provide Excellent Outcomes for Lateral Ligament Instability: A Systematic Review.
Review in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modified All-Inside Arthroscopic Anterior Tibiofibular Ligament Repair and Reinforcement in Chronic Ankle Instability.Arthroscopy techniques · 2026Article
- Risk factors for the recurrence of instability after operative treatment of chronic lateral ankle instability: A systematic review.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To analyze the literature to compare outcomes and complications following primary lateral ankle ligament repair compared with lateral ankle ligament reconstruction and the suture tape augmentation in patients with lateral ankle instability. Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria, a systematic literature review using the PubMed/Ovid Medline database was performed (October 11, 1947, to October 1, 2019). Clinical trials that included all the following criteria were considered eligible; published in the English language; patients undergoing primary lateral ankle repair or reconstruction with/without autograft or allograft (anterior talofibular ligament, anterior talofibular ligament + calcaneofibular ligament) or suture tape augmentation; a follow-up at least 1 year; reported least 1 of the measured outcomes (The American Orthopaedic Foot Ankle Score, Karlsson Score, return to sport [RTS], complications, skin wound complications, reoperation). Surgical techniques were evaluated, and studies were subdivided by the following categories: primary repair (PR), reconstruction with graft (GR), and suture tape augmentation (STA). Complications, radiographic outcomes, functional outcome scores, and RTS were analyzed. Results: A total of 41 of 1,991 studies met the criteria for final analysis. This included 1,920 patients who underwent surgical intervention for chronic lateral instability with at least a 1-year follow-up. There were 350 patients who had GR, 1,486 who underwent the PR, and 84 who had STA. GR group appeared to have the lowest rate of complications: GR 3.1% (11 of 350), PR 4.2% (63 of 1486), and STA 10.7% (9 of 84). Postoperative American Orthopaedic Foot Ankle Score ranged from 89.0 to 95.1 for GR and 90.0 to 98.8 for PR. Postoperative Karlsson scores ranged from 80.9 to 94.4 for GR and from 89.2 to 94.1 for PR. Anterior drawer postoperative scores ranged from 1.4 to 30.3 mm for GR, 2.7 to 8.6 mm for PR, and 4.1 to 4.2 mm for STA. Postoperative talar tilt ranged from 2.4 to 7.3° for GR, 1.9 to 6.0° for PR, and 3.6 to 4.5° for STA. RTS ranged from 9.5 to 20.4 weeks for the PR group; one study reported a RTS of 10.6 weeks for STA. Conclusions: Excellent outcomes were noted across all intervention groups. Current literature may suggest there is no difference in functional outcomes between patients treated with PR versus GR. However, there may be a potential improvement in functional outcomes with PR versus STA. Level of Evidence: Level IV, systematic review of Level I to Level IV studies.
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.