Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35958290›Full record

ReviewOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2022

Revision Rates After Primary ACL Reconstruction Performed Between 1969 and 2018: A Systematic Review and Metaregression Analysis.

Rasmus J Liukkonen, Ville T Ponkilainen, Aleksi Reito

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Multiple revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: not the best but still good.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. A scoping review and guide for in vitro healthy human knee joint laxity.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Anterolateral corner of knee: Current concepts.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025
    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

3 authors.

Rasmus J LiukkonenFaculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.
Ville T PonkilainenDepartment of Surgery, Central Finland Hospital Nova, Jyväskylä, Finland.
Aleksi ReitoFaculty of Medicine and Health Technology, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Numerous studies, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs), have been published on the optimal graft choice for primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Purpose: To review existing studies to investigate whether advances in orthopaedics have affected revision rates after primary ACL reconstruction. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: The PubMed database was searched from inception to December 31, 2020, using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Patient series, observational studies, clinical trials, and registry-based studies investigating primary ACL reconstruction were included, as were high-quality RCTs from an additional study. The minimum required follow-up time for inclusion was 1 year. The primary outcome measure was the pooled prevalence of revision ACL reconstruction. The effect of the year the surgery was performed on revision rates was evaluated with metaregression analysis. All graft types were analyzed simultaneously, and all analyses were repeated separately for each graft type. Results: Overall, 330 articles with 52,878 patients were included, with a median patient age of 28 years (range, 15-57 years). The primary ACL reconstructions were performed between 1969 and 2018. At a median of 2.3 years of follow-up, the overall revision rate was 3.14% (95% CI, 2.76% to 3.56%); it was 2.71% (95% CI, 2.25% to 3.27%) for hamstring autografts, 2.38% (95% CI, 1.82% to 3.11%) for bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autografts, and 5.24% (95% CI, 4.02% to 6.80%) for other graft types. For hamstring grafts, the revision rate increased over time (year of surgery), with a 0.0434 (95% CI, 0.0150 to 0.0718) increase effect in the logit-transformed scale for every additional year. There was a slight decrease in revision rates for BPTB (β = -0.0049; 95% CI, -0.0352 to 0.0254) and other graft types (β = -0.0306; 95% CI, -0.0608 to -0.0005) over time; however, confidence intervals for BPTB included the zero change. Conclusion: Based on this systematic review and meta-analysis, ACL reconstruction is a reliable procedure with overall low historical revision rates. BPTB autograft had the lowest revision rate and a slightly decreasing trend of failures during the past 45 years, although both BPTB and hamstring autografts are reliable graft choices.

Indexed as

ACLanterior cruciate ligamentmetaregressionrevisiontraumatology

Identifiers

PMID35958290
PMCPMC9358584

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.