Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36033181›Full record

ReviewArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2022

Autograft and Nonirradiated Allograft for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Demonstrate Similar Clinical Outcomes and Graft Failure Rates: An Updated Systematic Review.

Jaydeep Dhillon, Matthew J Kraeutler, John W Belk, Eric C McCarty, Patrick C McCulloch, Anthony J Scillia

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. The results of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with allograft versus autograft: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Comparison of autograft and allograft outcomes in adolescent ACL reconstruction: a propensity score analysis.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. 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

6 authors.

Jaydeep DhillonRocky Vista University College of Osteopathic Medicine, Parker, Colorado, U.S.A.
Matthew J KraeutlerDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, St. Joseph's University Medical Center, Paterson, New Jersey, U.S.A.
John W BelkDepartment of Orthopedics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, U.S.A.
Eric C McCartyDepartment of Orthopedics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, U.S.A.
Patrick C McCullochHouston Methodist Hospital, Houston, Texas, U.S.A.
Anthony J ScilliaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, St. Joseph's University Medical Center, Paterson, New Jersey, U.S.A.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: To perform an updated systematic review comparing the clinical outcomes of autograft versus nonirradiated allograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify comparative studies directly comparing outcomes of primary ACLR with autograft versus nonirradiated allograft with a minimum 2-year follow-up. The search terms used were: "anterior cruciate ligament" AND autograft AND allograft AND (irradiation OR non-irradiated). Patients were evaluated based on graft failure rates, the Objective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, anteroposterior laxity, and patient-reported outcomes (Subjective IKDC score, the visual analog scale [VAS], the Cincinnati Knee Rating System, Lysholm, and Tegner scores). Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I and Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool for non-randomized and randomized studies, respectively. Results: Sixteen studies (3 Level I, 7 Level II, 6 Level III) met inclusion criteria, including a total of 15,502 patients undergoing ACLR with autograft and 1,577 with nonirradiated allograft. The average follow-up ranged from 24.0 to 132.0 months. Graft failure ranged from 0% to 9.4% of patients in the autograft group and 0% to 26.5% in the allograft group. Two studies showed greater failure rates among younger patients in the allograft group. There were no significant differences between the Objective IKDC score, anteroposterior laxity, or patient-reported outcomes between the groups within any of the included studies ( Conclusions: Autograft and nonirradiated allograft for primary ACLR demonstrate similar patient-reported outcomes and graft failure rates. Level of Evidence: III, systematic review of level I-III studies.

Identifiers

PMID36033181
PMCPMC9402423

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.