Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39376746›Full record

ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2024

Rate and Timing of Revision and Contralateral Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Relative to Index Surgery.

Scott J Halperin, Meera M Dhodapkar, William M McLaughlin, Timothy E Hewett, Jonathan N Grauer, Michael J Medvecky

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

Scott J HalperinDepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Meera M DhodapkarDepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
William M McLaughlinDepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6582-1868
Timothy E HewettDepartment of Orthopaedics, Marshall University School of Medicine, Huntington, West Virginia, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9729-7573
Jonathan N GrauerDepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Michael J MedveckyDepartment of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1481-3232

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: After anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR), ipsilateral ACL graft reinjury or contralateral ACL injury has been reported. The rate and predictors of such subsequent ACL injuries have not been reported in recent years and in large patient cohorts. Purpose: The current study utilized a large, national, multi-insurance, administrative database to assess subsequent ACLR and factors associated with its occurrence. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Using the PearlDiver M151 database, patients who underwent ACLR within the United States between 2015 and 2021 were abstracted. All included patients had ≥3 years of evaluation after initial ACLR. Patients who underwent a subsequent reconstruction (ipsilateral or contralateral) within 3 years were determined and the timing assessed. Using univariable and multivariable logistic regression, the factors associated with having a subsequent ACLR and the factors associated with returning for ipsilateral versus contralateral ACLR were examined. Results: In total, 40,151 patients who underwent initial ACLR during the study period were identified. Of these, subsequent ACLR was performed for 1689 patients (4.2%). These included ipsilateral revision for 1018 (60.3%) and contralateral reconstruction for 671 (39.7%) patients. Patients returning for ipsilateral reconstruction did so sooner than patients needing a contralateral reconstruction. On multivariable analysis, the only factor independently associated with subsequent ACLR was younger age (odds ratio [OR] = 4.17 for 10-14 years relative to 25-29 years; Conclusion: The overall rate of requiring a subsequent ACLR was found to be 4.2%, with 60.3% of these being to the ipsilateral ACL. This information may be helpful for evolving injury-prevention programs and patient counseling.

Indexed as

ACLcontralateral ACL reconstructionknee ligamentsPearlDiverrevision ACL reconstruction

Identifiers

PMID39376746
PMCPMC11457252

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.