ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2022
No increased rate of cyclops lesions and extension deficits after remnant-preserving ACL reconstruction using the sparing technique.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Disrupted sensorimotor control after ACL injury: from mechanoreceptor degeneration to neuroplasticity-oriented rehabilitation.Annals of medicine · 2026Review
- Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Modified Remnant-Preserving Technique: A Sleeve-Like Membrane Suturing Method for the Tibial Remnant.Arthroscopy techniques · 2026Article
- Why Should Return to Sport Be Delayed by up to Two Years After ACL Reconstruction? A Narrative Review of the Biological, Surgical and Rehabilitation Evidence.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Association of Smaller Intercondylar Notch Size With Graft Failure After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2024Article
- Anterior Cruciate Ligament Hybrid Remnant Preservation Reconstruction Demonstrates Equivalent Patient-Reported Outcomes and Complications as Traditional Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction After 1 Year.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRemnant-preserving anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) should have advantages for postoperative remodeling and proprioception. However, it has been suggested that the larger diameter of the graft tends to lead to impingement phenomena with a higher rate of cyclops lesions. The aim of this work was to find out whether the remnant-preserving ACLR actually leads to an increased rate of range of motion restraints compared to the remnant-sacrificing technique.
methodsPatients, who fulfilled the inclusion criteria, were followed up for one year after surgery. The primary endpoint was arthrolysis due to extension deficit or cyclops syndrome. Secondary outcome measures were pain (NRS), knee function (KOOS), patient satisfaction and return to sports rate.
resultsOne hundred and sixty-four patients were included in the study, 60 of whom received the "remnant augmentation" procedure (group 1). In the remnant augmentation group, one cyclops resection was performed, whereas in the non-remnant augmentation group three cyclops lesion resections had to be performed (odds ratio 0.6). There was no difference between the groups in pain (NRS) and knee function (KOOS) and patient satisfaction. The return to sports rate after one year was higher in the remnant augmentation group.
conclusionsPatients who have undergone the sparing "remnant augmentation" ACLR have no increased risk of cyclops lesion formation or extension deficit in the first year after surgery. An improvement of the proprioceptive abilities by remnant augmentation ACLR should be investigated in further studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III (prospective cohort study).
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.