ReviewJournal of experimental orthopaedics2024
Double-bundle versus single-bundle medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction for recurrent patellar dislocation: A meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Medial Patellar Retinaculum Cable Replacement of Medial Quadriceps Tendon-Femoral Ligament Combined With Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction in Treatment of Recurrent Patellar Dislocation.Arthroscopy techniques · 2026Article
- Arthroscopically Assisted Double-Bundle Reconstruction Technique for Medial Patellofemoral Ligament.Arthroscopy techniques · 2025Article
- Medial Patellar Ligament Reconstruction Using Peroneus Longus Tendon Autograft for Recurrent Patellar Dislocation-Patellar Instability.Arthroscopy techniques · 2025Article
- Clinical and radiological outcomes following isolated double-bundle medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction for patellar instability in mature and normal lower limb alignment patients: a 12-year follow-up case series.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- Double-bundle versus single-bundle medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction for recurrent patellar dislocation: A meta-analysis.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2024Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the clinical efficacy of single-bundle versus double-bundle reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) for recurrent patellar dislocation (RPD) regarding knee function scores, postoperative complications, and imaging assessments. Methods: A computerized search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China National Knowledge Network (CNKI), and VIP Database was performed for single-bundle versus double-bundle reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament for treatment of RPD. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were evaluated for quality using the risk-of-bias evaluation tool recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration Network, and Cohort studies (CSs) were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) scale. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software and STATA 16.0. Results: Thirteen studies were included, four randomized controlled studies, and nine cohort studies. The level of evidence for the four randomized controlled studies was Ⅰ, and the nine cohort studies were Ⅲ. A total of 862 (891 knees) patients were included, of which 448 (465 knees) underwent double-bundle MPFL reconstruction and 414 (426 knees) underwent single-bundle MPFL reconstruction. Kujala score (MD = 2.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.11, 4.01], Conclusions: Double-bundle reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament for RPD was superior to single-bundle reconstruction in both knee function scores and postoperative recurrent patellar instability, and double-bundle reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament for RPD had better clinical outcomes. Level of Evidence: Level Ⅲ, Ⅰ and Ⅲ studies.
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.