Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39101299›Full record

ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2025

Patients undergoing multiligament knee reconstruction injured during pivoting sports demonstrate similar clinical, functional and return to sport outcomes by 2 years compared with those undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Jay R Ebert, Peter K Edwards, Alistair I W Mayne, Peter S E Davies, Robert Evans, Randeep S Aujla, Shahbaz S Malik, Stephen Dalgleish, Satyen Gohil, Peter D'Alessandro

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article 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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

10 authors.

Jay R EbertSchool of Human Sciences (Exercise and Sport Science), University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5843-6243
Peter K EdwardsOrthopaedic Research Foundation of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Alistair I W MayneOrthopaedic Research Foundation of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Peter S E DaviesOrthopaedic Research Foundation of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Robert EvansJoondalup Health Campus, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Randeep S AujlaLeicester Knee Unit, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK.
Shahbaz S MalikWorcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust, Worcester, UK.
Stephen DalgleishNinewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, UK.
Satyen GohilFiona Stanley and Fremantle Hospitals Group, South Metropolitan Health Service, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Peter D'AlessandroOrthopaedic Research Foundation of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.

Funding

None
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study investigates the clinical and activity-based outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) versus multiligamentous knee reconstruction (MLKR) following a pivoting sports injury.

methodsFifty MLKR patients were included, of which 20 (40%) were injured during pivoting sports. A further 50 patients undergoing ACLR following an injury during pivoting sports were consecutively recruited for comparison. Patients were assessed before the surgery and at 6-, 12- and 24 months with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) including the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) form, Tegner activity scale (TAS) and anterior cruciate ligament return to sport after injury (ACL-RSI) score. Knee movement, the single (SHD) and triple (THD) hop tests for distance, and peak isokinetic knee extensor and flexor strength were assessed, with Limb Symmetry Indices (LSIs) calculated. Outcomes were compared across groups: (1) ACLR (n = 50), (2) MLKR (n = 50) and (3) MLKR due to pivoting sport injury (n = 20).

resultsIKDC, TAS and ACL-RSI scores remained lower (p < 0.05) in the full MLKR versus ACLR cohort at all timepoints. Comparing the ACLR and MLKR cohort that had injuries specifically during pivoting sports, the IKDC (p < 0.001) and TAS (p = 0.009) were higher in the ACLR group at 6 months, and the ACL-RSI was higher at 6 (p < 0.001) and 12 (p = 0.007) months, there were no further differences. Hop and knee extensor strength LSIs were lower (p < 0.05) in the full MLKR (versus ACLR) cohort at all timepoints (apart from the 24-month SHD LSI). However, the ACLR group only demonstrated greater LSIs than the pivoting sport MLKR for the SHD at 6 months (p < 0.001), and knee extensor strength at 6 (p < 0.001) and 12 (p < 0.001) months.

conclusionsWhile the recovery of patients undergoing MLKR due to a pivoting sports injury is delayed compared with their ACLR counterparts, the clinical outcome and activity profile are similar by 24 months. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Indexed as

Anterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesAnterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionAthletic InjuriesKnee InjuriesReturn to SportAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMalePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresRecovery of FunctionTreatment OutcomeYoung Adultanterior cruciate ligament reconstructionclinical outcomesknee functionmultiligament knee reconstructionreturn to sport

Identifiers

PMID39101299
PMCPMC11848961

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.