ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2024
Association of Remaining Anterior Knee Laxity With Inferior Outcomes After Revision ACL Reconstruction.
Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chronic ACL Injury Drives a Fibrotic and Matrix-Degradative Shift: A Multi-Level Analysis of MMP-13 and TGF-β1.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Propensity Score-Matched Comparison of Six-Strand All-Inside and Conventional Four-Strand Hamstring Autografts for ACL Reconstruction.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The relationship between remaining anterior knee laxity and poorer clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) may be underrated, and the criteria for failure of revision ACLR have not been defined. Purpose/Hypothesis: To evaluate a possible association between remaining knee laxity and functional scores in patients after revision ACLR. We hypothesized that a postoperative side-to-side-difference (SSD) in knee laxity of ≥6 mm will be an objective parameter for failure. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 200 patients (77 women and 123 men; mean age, 30.8 ± 11 years; range, 18-61 years) who underwent revision ACLR between 2016 and 2019 were evaluated; The mean follow-up period was 30.2 ± 9 months (range, 24-67 months). Patients were divided into 3 groups according to postoperative SSD (<3 mm, 3-5 mm, or ≥6 mm). Preoperative and postoperative outcome measures (Lachman, pivot shift, visual analog scale [VAS] for pain, Tegner, Lysholm, International Knee Documentation Committee, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) were compared between the groups. Results: Of the 200 patients, 74% (n = 148) had a postoperative SSD of <3 mm at the latest follow-up, 19.5% (n = 39) had a postoperative SSD of 3 to 5 mm, and 6.5% (n = 13) had a postoperative SSD of ≥6 mm. Patients in all groups saw significant pre- to postoperative reductions in positive Lachman and pivot-shift tests as well as significant improvements in VAS pain, Lysholm, and Tegner scores ( Conclusion: In patients following revision ACLR, anterior and rotational knee laxity were successfully reduced while increasing postoperative functional outcomes. A remaining postoperative SSD of ≥6 mm was associated with inferior patient outcomes compared with an SSD <6 mm. An SSD of ≥6 mm represents an objective parameter in the definition of failure of revision ACLR.
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.