ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2024
Bridge-Enhanced Anterior Cruciate Ligament Restoration: 6-Year Results From the First-in-Human Cohort Study.
Article 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. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bridge-Enhanced Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair versus Autograft Reconstruction in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Surgery.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Review
- Comparing Bridge-Enhanced Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair to Standard Autograft for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Biomechanical and Clinical Outcomes.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Article
- Orthobiologics in anterior cruciate ligament injuries.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Review
- Real-time indocyanine green perfusion assessment demonstrates regional vascularity and loss of perfusion in the anterior cruciate ligament during knee arthroscopy.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Primary anterior cruciate ligament repair with suture tape augmentation: indications, failure predictors, clinical outcomes, and evidence gaps.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Review
- A clinical practice review: augmentation of meniscoligamentous structures for primary prevention of knee joint deterioration.Annals of joint · 2026Review
- 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
- Retensionable Anchor Repair of Proximal Anterior Cruciate Ligament Avulsion.Arthroscopy techniques · 2025Article
- Deciding Between ACL Reconstruction, Repair, and Conservative Treatment in Young Athletes: A Systematic Narrative Review.Open access journal of sports medicine · 2025Review
- Tears, Tendons, and Trends: A Bibliometric Analysis on Anterior Cruciate Ligament Research.Orthopedic reviews · 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
Background: Bridge-enhanced anterior cruciate ligament restoration (BEAR) combines suture repair of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) with an extracellular matrix implant plus autologous blood to facilitate native ACL healing. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to compare the 6-year follow-up outcomes of patients who underwent the BEAR procedure with those of a nonrandomized concurrent control group receiving autograft ACL reconstruction (ACLR) in the first-in-human safety study of the BEAR implant (BEAR I trial). Based on the 2-year results, it was hypothesized that isometric hamstring strength after the BEAR procedure would be greater than that after ACLR and that there would be no other differences in outcomes at 6 years. Study Design: Cohort study, Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Ten patients underwent BEAR and 10 received ACLR with a 4-stranded hamstring autograft. Outcomes assessed included the record of subsequent surgeries, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Score, IKDC physical examination grade, the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, instrumented knee laxity, functional outcomes (ie, muscle strength assessments and hop testing), and qualitative magnetic resonance imaging assessment. Comparisons between treatments were based on computations of the mean differences and the associated 95% CIs. Results: One patient in the BEAR group and 3 patients in the ACLR group were lost to follow-up. In the period between 2 and 6 years, 1 patient in each group underwent revision surgery. There were no differences between groups at the 6-year follow-up in any of the outcome measures except for isometric hamstring strength, which was approximately equal to that of the contralateral knee in the BEAR group and <44% of that in the contralateral knee in the ACLR group ( Conclusion: This preliminary study suggests that the outcomes of BEAR and ACLR with a hamstring tendon graft may be similar at the 6-year follow-up and warrants investigation of the BEAR procedure in a larger cohort of patients.
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.