SynthesisKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2025
Anterior cruciate ligament primary repair revision rates are increased in skeletally mature patients under the age of 21 compared to reconstruction, while adults (>21 years) show no significant difference: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Anterior cruciate ligament primary repair revision rates are increased in skeletally mature patients under the age of 21 compared to reconstruction, while adults (>21 years) show no significant difference: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2025Pooled it
- 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
- Pass Rates of Return to Sport Test Batteries Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Sports (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Low Incidence of Osteoarthritis and Excellent Clinical Outcomes at Minimum 10 Years Following Primary Repair of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
- A Research Hotspot-Guided Meta-Analysis of Anterior Closing-Wedge High Tibial Osteotomy in Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Low Failure Rates and Favorable Outcomes of Meniscal Repair With Concomitant Anterior Cruciate Ligament Primary Repair at Minimum 2-Year Follow-up.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
- Primary Arthroscopic Repair of Chronic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tears.Arthroscopy techniques · 2025Article
- Reliability of Preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Determining the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tear Location.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2025Article
- From Past to Future: Emergent Concepts of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Surgery and Rehabilitation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Preferences Including Graft Choice, Lateral Augmentation, and Rehabilitation After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Among National Football League Team Orthopaedic Surgeons.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- The Anatomic Biologic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Primary Repair Technique.Arthroscopy techniques · 2025Article
- Comparison of cellular activity and gene expression in repaired versus reconstructed anterior cruciate ligaments: A case-control study.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- The Effect of Technical Characteristics of Revision ACL Reconstruction on Functional Outcomes.Journal of clinical practice and research · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the impact of age as a risk factor on the revision rates of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) primary repair (ACLPR), dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) and bridge-enhanced ACL restoration (BEAR) compared to ACL reconstruction (ACLR).
methodsA systematic literature search was performed for comparative studies comparing outcomes for ACLPR, DIS or BEAR to ACLR. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to assess nondifferentiated and age-differentiated (skeletally mature patients ≤21 and >21 years) ACL revision and reoperation risk, as well as results for subjective outcomes. Methodological study quality was assessed using the Risk of Bias Tool 2.0c and Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies tools.
resultsA total of 12 studies (n = 1277) were included. ACLR demonstrated a lower nonage-stratified revision risk at 2 years versus ACLPR, DIS and BEAR, but a similar revision risk at 5 years when compared to DIS. However, an age-stratified analysis demonstrated a significantly increased ACLPR revision risk as compared to ACLR in skeletally mature patients ≤21 years of age (risk ratios [RR], 6.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-33.87, p = 0.03), while adults (>21 years) showed no significant difference between groups (RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.25-8.91, n.s.). Furthermore, DIS reoperation rates were significantly higher than respective ACLR rates (RR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.35-3.65, p = 0.002), whereas BEAR (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.41-2.75, n.s.) and ACLPR (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.21-3.09, n.s.) showed no differences. IKDC scores were equivalent for all techniques. However, ACLPR exhibited significantly better FJS (mean difference, 11.93; 95% CI, 6.36-17.51, p < 0.0001) and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Symptoms (mean difference, 3.01; 95% CI, 0.42-5.60, p = 0.02), along with a lower Tegner activity reduction.
conclusionsACLPR in skeletally mature patients ≤21 years of age is associated with up to a six-fold risk increase for ACL revision surgery compared to ACLR; however, adults (>21 years) present no significant difference. Based on the current data, age emerges as a crucial risk factor and should be considered when deciding on the appropriate treatment option in proximal ACL tears. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
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.