ReviewOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2024
Autograft Versus Allograft in Posterolateral Corner Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review 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 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.
- Diagnosis, Treatment, and Current Controversies in Multiligament Knee Injuries: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Multiligament-injured knee: what the general orthopedic surgeon should know.EFORT open reviews · 2026Review
- Finding the Optimal Balance - Isolated Posterolateral Corner Reconstruction with Allograft Tendon in a Combined Posterolateral Corner-Posterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: A Case Report.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Several approaches to surgical techniques and graft types exist in posterolateral corner (PLC) reconstruction. The literature lacks knowledge regarding outcomes after autograft versus allograft reconstruction for PLC injuries. Purpose: To comprehensively review the current literature on PLC reconstruction and compare outcomes between autograft and allograft tissues. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: The PubMed and Scopus online databases were searched with the terms "PLC,""posterolateral knee,""posterolateral corner," and "reconstruction" in varying combinations. Patient characteristics, graft type, graft failure, surgical techniques, functional outcome scores, and varus laxity on stress radiographs were reviewed and compared between PLC reconstruction with autografts versus allografts. Results: Included were 22 studies comprising 33 cohorts: 16 autografts (n = 280 knees) and 17 allografts (336 knees). There were 69 isolated PLC reconstructions (58 allografts and 11 autografts) and 493 multiligament reconstructions (269 autografts and 224 allografts). There was no difference in the mean patient age (30.5 vs 33.5 years, respectively; Conclusion: Our review and meta-analysis indicated no significant differences in graft failure rates or objective outcomes after PLC reconstruction based on graft type alone. There was a significant difference in postoperative Lysholm scores in favor of the autograft group and no significant difference in IKDC subjective scores.
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.