ArticleThe archives of bone and joint surgery2024
Double and Single Bundle in Athletes: A Comparison in Medium and Long-Term Rates to Return to Sport and Re-Injury.
Article in The archives of bone and joint surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Repeat Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Remains a Challenge for Orthopedic Surgeons.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2025Article
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
Objectives: Compare, retrospectively, the medium- and long-term of return to sport rates and re-injury of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) in patients submitted to single-bundle (SB) compared to double-bundle (DB) technique reconstruction. Methods: Athletes operated by SB or DB ACL reconstruction, with at least five years of follow-up at a single center, were included. The following data were collected: demographic data; competitive sports practice before the injury; previous surgery; injury/surgery to the contralateral knee; return to sports and level of the return; re-injury (time of the re-injury after the first surgery; mechanism of trauma for the re-injury; necessity of operative treatment); signs and complaints related to the knee the last clinical consultation. Results: Seventy-six athletes (27 SB and 49 DB) were included. The return to sport rate (98%) was the same for both groups, and the return to the previous level rate showed an improvement in the DB group but without statistical significance (63% vs. 79%; P = 0.173). However, other outcomes showed higher results for the DB group: lower re-injury rate throughout the follow-up period (41% vs. 18%; P = 0.034) and during the first year of follow-up (22% vs. 4%; P = 0.021), and less stiffness (0% vs. 22%, P = 0.001). While in primary reconstruction cases, there was not a higher re-injury rate using SB (P = 0.744), in the revision cases, SB was correlated with more re-injuries than DB (P = 0.002). Conclusion: The overall re-injury in the medium- and long-term and the return to practice sports at the same level as before surgery in athletes submitted to DB reconstruction were slightly better than those submitted to SB reconstruction, especially in the cases that were asecond time lesion ( revisioned knees).
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.