Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38967267›Full record

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.

Sebastian Rilk, Gabriel C Goodhart, Jelle P van der List, Fidelius Von Rehlingen-Prinz, Harmen D Vermeijden, Robert O'Brien, Gregory S DiFelice

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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 · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Sebastian RilkDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York-Presbyterian, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6949-6433
Gabriel C GoodhartDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York-Presbyterian, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York, USA.
Jelle P van der ListDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York-Presbyterian, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7940-5152
Fidelius Von Rehlingen-PrinzDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York-Presbyterian, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York, USA.
Harmen D VermeijdenDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York-Presbyterian, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7088-257X
Robert O'BrienDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York-Presbyterian, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York, USA.
Gregory S DiFeliceDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York-Presbyterian, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, New York, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9559-757X

Funding

None
6 · The paper itself

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

Anterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesAnterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionReoperationAdultAge FactorsHumansRisk FactorsYoung AdultACL preservationACL primary repairbridge‐enhanced ACL restorationdynamic intraligamentary stabilization

Identifiers

PMID38967267
PMCPMC11716360

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.