ReviewIndian journal of orthopaedics2022
Single Bundle Versus Double Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Differences in the collagen of semitendinosus tendon in patients with and without general joint laxity.Bone & joint research · 2026Article
- The effect of 30° and 70° arthroscope use on femoral and tibial tunnel placement in arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2026Article
- Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear is considered as one of the most common sport-related musculoskeletal injuries. Double bundle (DB) and single bundle (SB) surgical techniques has been widely adopted for ACL reconstruction. This systematic review aimed to provide updated evidence by comparing the short-term, mid-term, and long-term knee stability and functional outcomes of DB and SB reconstruction techniques. Methods: We searched Medline, Web of Science, and CENTRAL. We have selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared DB and SB ACL reconstruction techniques for primary isolated ACL tear. We have assessed the following outcomes: pivot shift test, Lachman test, KT-1000/2000 knee ligament arthrometer, Lysholm knee function score, Tegner activity score, and graft failure. We have used the standardized mean difference (SMD) was to summarize the continuous outcomes while risk ratio (RR) was used to summarize the dichotomous outcomes. Results: A total of 34 RCTs that enrolled 2,992 participants deemed eligible. Overall, DB showed significantly better outcomes in terms of pivot shift test (RR = 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.75), Lachman test (RR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.95), and KT 1000/2000 arthrometer (SMD = - 0.21, 95% CI - 0.34 to - 0.08). No discernible difference was found between DB and SB techniques in the overall Lysholm score (SMD = 0.12, 95% CI - 0.03 to 0.27), Tegner score (SMD = 0.03, 95% CI - 0.17 to 0.24), or graft failure rate (RR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.85). Conclusions: Our review suggests that DB ACL reconstruction technique shows significantly better knee stability and functional outcomes than SB at short-term follow-up. However, both techniques exhibit similar outcomes at mid-term and long-term follow-up. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43465-022-00718-0.
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.