ArticleArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2024
Remnant-Sparing Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Results in Similar Clinical, Functional, and Quality-of-Life Outcomes to Anatomic Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.
Article in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- How Are We Matching in ACL Reconstruction Research? A Systematic Review of Methods, Reporting, and Covariate Selection.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Review
- Remnant-preserving anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring autograft yields the lowest re-rupture rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Review
- Single-Bundle Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Suture Tape Augmentation and Transtibial Tubercle Fixation.Arthroscopy techniques · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare a large cohort of patients who underwent remnant-sparing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (rACLR) with a matched group of patients who underwent anatomic single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with respect to clinical laxity, patient-reported outcomes, and functional testing. Methods: Patients who underwent rACLR between January 2010 and December 2015 were matched according to age, sex, body mass index, and graft type to patients who underwent ACLR. The primary outcome measure was the ACL Quality of Life (ACL-QOL) score at final follow-up of 24 months. Secondary outcomes included functional tests and clinical laxity measurements at 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Concurrent intra-articular pathology at the time of surgery and postoperative complications were also recorded. Statistical analyses included the dependent Results: A total of 210 rACLR patients were successfully matched to a corresponding cohort of 210 ACLR patients. There were no statistically significant differences in ACL Quality of Life (ACL-QOL) or functional testing results between the groups; however, scores in both groups showed a steady and statistically significant improvement over time. A statistically significant difference was noted with respect to the Lachman test findings, favoring the rACLR cohort ( Conclusions: There was no difference in patient-reported or functional testing outcomes in patients undergoing remnant-sparing compared with anatomic single-bundle ACLR. There was, however, a significantly lower rate of positive Lachman test findings after rACLR. Furthermore, the rate of concurrent meniscal and chondral pathology was lower in the rACLR group. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study.
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.