Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39506539›Full record

Trial reportKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2025

No difference in osteoarthritis, but less graft failures after 5 years, comparing anatomic double-bundle to anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction.

Cathrine Aga, Ingrid Trøan, Stig Heir, May Arna Risberg, Tariq Rana, Steinar Johansen, Morten Wang Fagerland, Lars Engebretsen

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report 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. It is linked to trial NCT01033188 (Single Bundle or Double Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. A Randomized, Controlled Trial.), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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.

NCT01033188 nacompletednot on this map

Single Bundle or Double Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. A Randomized, Controlled Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorOslo University HospitalRan2010 to 2017Enrolled120ConditionsKnee Outcome, SubjectiveArmsSingle bundle, Double bundle
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
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

8 authors.

Cathrine AgaMartina Hansens Hospital, Gjettum, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6947-738X
Ingrid TrøanOslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Stig HeirMartina Hansens Hospital, Gjettum, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6493-074X
May Arna RisbergOslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9511-1314
Tariq RanaOslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.
Steinar JohansenLovisenberg Diaconal Hospital, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5614-7050
Morten Wang FagerlandOslo Sports Trauma Research Centre, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4535-5043
Lars EngebretsenOslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2294-921X

Funding

South-Eastern Regional Health Authority
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of knee osteoarthritis (OA) between the anatomic single-bundle (SB) and anatomic double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction technique after 5-year follow-up (FU). Secondary objectives were to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), clinical examination, activity level, functional tests and graft failures between the two groups.

methodsThe study was a secondary analysis after 5-year FU of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) (Clinical Trials NCT01033188). One hundred and twenty patients between 18 and 40 years were randomized to either anatomic SB or anatomic DB reconstruction. The Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) classification grade ≥2 and the Osteoarthritis Research Society International (OARSI) atlas criteria score ≥2 were used for defining OA. Additionally, PROMs were obtained and clinical examinations of the knees were performed. Finally, the number of patients experiencing graft failure in each group was recorded.

resultsRadiographic imaging was performed in 39 patients in the SB group and in 37 patients in the DB group. Four patients (10%) in the SB group and two (5%) in the DB group developed osteoarthritis according to the KL classification (p = 0.28). Five (13%) in the SB group and three (8%) in the DB group developed osteoarthritis according to the OARSI atlas criteria (p = 0.59; difference 5.0% [95% confidence interval, CI: -0.10 to 0.20]). There were no significant differences in the PROMs, clinical examinations, activity levels, or functional tests when comparing the two groups. Of initially 62 SB patients, 14 (23%) experienced graft failure compared to 4 (7%) of the 58 DB patients (p = 0.015; difference 0.016 [95% CI: 0.03-0.29]).

conclusionAt 5-year FU, there were no significant differences in the incidence of OA, PROMS, or other clinical findings comparing the anatomic DB to anatomic SB ACL reconstructed patients. There were fewer graft failures among patients treated with anatomic DB ACL reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.

Indexed as

Anterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesAnterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionGraft RejectionOsteoarthritis, KneeAdolescentAdultFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIncidenceMalePatient Reported Outcome MeasuresYoung AdultACL reconstructiondouble‐bundlegraft failureosteoarthritisrevision

Identifiers

PMID39506539
PMCPMC12310090

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.