Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37733288›Full record

Trial reportKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2023

Combined anterior cruciate ligament revision with reconstruction of the antero-lateral ligament does not improve outcome at 2-year follow-up compared to isolated acl revision; a randomized controlled trial.

Ole Gade Sørensen, Peter Faunø, Lars Konradsen, Torsten Nielsen, Susanne Schaarup, Bjarne Mygind-Klavsen, Michael Krogsgaard, Martin Lind

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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

8 authors.

Ole Gade SørensenDepartment of Sports Traumatology, University Hospital of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark. olegades@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5190-5577
Peter FaunøDepartment of Sports Traumatology, University Hospital of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark.
Lars KonradsenSection for Sports Traumatology, Bispebjerg, Frederiksberg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Torsten NielsenDepartment of Sports Traumatology, University Hospital of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark.
Susanne SchaarupSection for Sports Traumatology, Bispebjerg, Frederiksberg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Bjarne Mygind-KlavsenDepartment of Sports Traumatology, University Hospital of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark.
Michael KrogsgaardSection for Sports Traumatology, Bispebjerg, Frederiksberg University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Martin LindDepartment of Sports Traumatology, University Hospital of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIt is essential to obtain rotational stability of the knee after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-R) and it is suggested that a supplementary reconstruction of the antero-lateral ligament (ALL-R) may supports this. Theoretically, ALL-R may be particularly advantageous to support revision of failed ACL-Rs. It was hypothesized that ACL revision combined with ALL-R will result in superior outcome compared to isolated ACL revision.

methodsThe study was designed as a randomized controlled trial. Patients eligible for first time ACL revision were randomized to either isolated ACL revision (- ALL group) or ACL revision combined with a single-stranded allograft ALL-reconstruction (+ ALL group). Patient reported outcomes and function were evaluated at two-year follow-up by KNEES-ACL, KOOS, and Tegner activity scale. Objective knee laxity was evaluated at one-year follow-up using an instrumented Rolimeter test, the pivot shift test, and a manual Lachman test.

resultsA total of 103 patients were enrolled with 49 patients randomized to the + ALL group and 54 patients in the - ALL group. There were no differences at baseline between groups regarding age, gender, body mass index, preoperative patient reported outcome scores and concomitant meniscus or cartilage injury. The ACL revision was performed with an allograft in 10 patients (20%) in the + ALL group and 8 patients (15%) in the -ALL group. At follow-up there was no significant difference between the groups in patient reported outcome scores and clinical knee laxity.

conclusionSupplementary ALL-R does not improve subjective outcome of first time ACL revision at two-years and clinical knee stability at one-year follow-up compared to isolated ACL revision. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I.

Indexed as

Anterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesCollateral LigamentsAnterior Cruciate LigamentFollow-Up StudiesHumansKnee JointACL revisionACL surgeryALL outcomesAnterolateral ligament

Identifiers

PMID37733288
PMCPMC10598101

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.