ReviewOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2024
Clinical Results of Primary Repair Versus Reconstruction of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Contemporary Trials.
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. It is linked to trial NCT07318272 (Comparison of Clinical and Functional Outcomes After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction and Primary Repair Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 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.
Comparison of Clinical and Functional Outcomes After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction and Primary Repair Surgery
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Postcommercialisation outcomes of bridge-enhanced anterior cruciate ligament restoration: The first 100 Bridge registry patients.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Article
- All-Inside and Conventional Techniques in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Retrospective Comparison Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Primary Arthroscopic Repair of Chronic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tears.Arthroscopy techniques · 2025Article
- Repair with suture tape augmentation vs. reconstruction for ACL tears: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair has gained renewed interest in select centers for patients with proximal or midsubstance ACL tears. Therefore, it is important to reassess contemporary clinical outcomes of ACL repair to determine whether a clinical benefit exists over the gold standard of ACL reconstruction (ACLR). Purpose: To (1) perform a meta-analysis of comparative trials to determine whether differences in clinical outcomes and adverse events exist between ACL repair versus ACLR and (2) synthesize the midterm outcomes of available trials. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: The PubMed, OVID/Medline, and Cochrane databases were queried in August 2023 for prospective and retrospective clinical trials comparing ACL repair and ACLR. Data pertaining to tear location, surgical technique, adverse events, and clinical outcome measures were recorded. DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models were constructed to quantitatively evaluate the association between ACL repair/ACLR, adverse events, and clinical outcomes. A subanalysis of minimum 5-year outcomes was performed. Results: Twelve studies (893 patients; 464 ACLR and 429 ACL repair) were included. Random-effects models demonstrated a higher relative risk (RR) of recurrent instability/clinical failure (RR = 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.57; Conclusion: In contemporary comparative trials of ACL repair versus ACLR, the RR of clinical failure, revision surgery due to ACL rerupture, and hardware removal was greater for primary ACL repair compared with ACLR. There were no observed differences in patient-reported outcome scores, reoperations, or knee-related complications between approaches. In the limited literature reporting on minimum 5-year outcomes, significant differences in adverse events or the International Knee Documentation Committee score were not observed.
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.