ReviewJournal of orthopaedics2024
Conservative treatment versus surgical reconstruction for ACL rupture: A systemic review.
Review in Journal of orthopaedics, 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.
- Comparison of clinical outcomes of triple-strand braid vs conventional quad-strand hamstring grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Magnetic resonance imaging follow-up after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- Research progress and clinical application of all-inside reconstruction techniques: narrative review.Frontiers in surgery · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture is a prevalent sports injury with rising rates attributed to increased population participation in sports activities. ACL rupture can lead to severe knee complications including cartilage damage, torn meniscus, and osteoarthritis. Current treatment options include conservative measures and surgical interventions. However, debates persist regarding the optimal approach. Purpose: This analysis intended to compare the function, knee stability, and incidence rate of secondary surgery between conservative and surgical treatments in ACL rupture patients. Methods: A systematic search was performed via Embase, Ovid Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for reporting outcomes of conservative and surgical treatments after ACL rupture. The outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), knee stability, the need for secondary meniscal surgery, delayed ACL reconstruction surgery, and revision ACL reconstruction surgery. Outcomes were analyzed using mean differences or odd ratios (OR) with 95 % CIs. Results: 11 studies were included with 1516 patients. For PROMs, our evidence indicated no differences in KOOS Pain, KOOS Symptoms, KOOS Sport/Rec, KOOS ADL, and KOOS QOL. (all p > 0.05). for knee stability, pivot shift (OR, 0.14; p < 0.001), Lachman test (OR, 0.06; p < 0.001), and tibia translation (p < 0.001) were evaluated, and the available evidence favored surgical treatment over conservative treatment. For the incidence rate of any secondary surgery after the first diagnosis, the surgical group showed a lower rate of meniscal surgery with statistical significance (OR, 0.37; p < 0.001). The average rate of revision ACL reconstruction is 5.80 %, while the rate of delayed ACL reconstruction after conservative treatment is 18.51 %. Conclusion: Currently, there is insufficient empirical evidence to advocate a systematic surgical reconstruction for any patient who tore his ACL. This review found no differences in function outcomes between conservative and surgical treatments. Regarding knee stability and secondary meniscal surgery, the results prefer the surgical treatments. The occurrence rate of revision and delayed ACL reconstruction are non-negligible factors that must be fully understood by both surgeons and patients before choosing a suitable treatment.
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.