SynthesisInternational orthopaedics2025
Biological augmentation of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with bone marrow aspirate concentrate: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Synthesis in International orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Orthobiologics in anterior cruciate ligament injuries.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Review
- APKASS 2024 consensus statement on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, part Ⅲ: Return to play after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.Asia-Pacific journal of sports medicine, arthroscopy, rehabilitation and technology · 2026Article
- Biologic Augmentation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction and Beyond: A Review of PRP and BMAC.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeBiological augmentation of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) is gaining attention for its theoretical potential to enhance postoperative healing and recovery. However, its clinical benefits remain uncertain, and its high cost raises questions about efficacy. Hence, we systematically reviewed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the effectiveness of BMAC in ACL reconstruction.
methodsOur search included Cochrane, EMBASE, OVID, PubMed, and Scopus databases for RCTs evaluating the use of BMAC in ACL reconstruction. Primary outcomes focused on International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores and Lysholm scores. Secondary outcomes included MRI-related outcomes and postoperative complications. Statistical analysis was conducted using Review Manager 5.4 (Cochrane Collaboration), with heterogeneity assessed using Cochrane's Q test and I
results221 patients from five RCTs were included, with 109 (49.3%) receiving BMAC augmentation. Follow-up ranged from 11.05 to 24 months. No significant differences were found in postoperative IKDC scores between the BMAC and control groups at, three, six and 12 months. The BMAC group had significantly higher IKDC scores at 24 months; however, this difference was unlikely to be clinically significant. No significant differences were observed in postoperative Lysholm scores at 12 or 24 months. MRI-related outcomes suggested potential graft recovery improvement with BMAC, and complication rates were comparable between groups.
conclusionIn summary, biological augmentation with BMAC in ACL reconstruction does not significantly improve early patient-reported outcomes but offers potential benefits in graft recovery without increasing complication rates.
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.