ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2023
Revision Rates After Primary Allograft ACL Reconstruction by Allograft Tissue Type in Older Patients.
Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2023. 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.
- A simplified algorithm to work up graft re-rupture following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.Bulletin of the Hospital for Joint Disease (2013) · 2025Review
- Comparative Outcomes After Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Allograft Reconstruction of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Using Various Allograft Processing Protocols.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2025Article
- The Durability of Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Comparison of Patients at <5 Years and ≥5 Years After Revision.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2025Article
- Patients Have Similar Clinical Outcomes and Failure Rates After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Tibialis Anterior Tendon, Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone, Hamstring Tendon, or Achilles Tendon Allografts: A Systematic Review.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: While there is extensive literature on the use of allograft versus autograft in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, there is limited clinical evidence to guide the surgeon in choice of allograft tissue type. Purpose: To assess the revision rate after primary ACL reconstruction with allograft and to compare revision rates based on allograft tissue type and characteristics. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients who underwent primary allograft ACL reconstructions at a single academic institution between 2015 and 2019 and who had minimum 2-year follow-up were included. Exclusion criteria were missing surgical or allograft tissue type data. Demographics, operative details, and subsequent surgical procedures were collected. Allograft details included graft tissue type (Achilles, bone-patellar tendon-bone [BTB], tibialis anterior or posterior, semitendinosus, unspecified soft tissue), allograft category (all-soft tissue vs bone block), donor age, irradiation duration and intensity, and chemical cleansing process. Revision rates were calculated and compared by allograft characteristics. Results: Included were 418 patients (age, 39 ± 12 years; body mass index, 30 ± 9 kg/m Conclusion: Similarly low (0%-6%) revision rates after primary ACL reconstruction were seen regardless of allograft tissue type, bone block versus all-soft tissue allograft, and sterilization technique in 418 patients with mean age of 39 years. Surgeons may consider appropriately processed allograft tissue with or without bone block when indicating ACL reconstruction in older patients.
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.