ReviewJournal of orthopaedics2025
Repair with suture tape augmentation vs. reconstruction for ACL tears: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Durable mid-term survivorship after proximal ACL repair with suture augmentation in a middle-aged cohort: A risk factor analysis.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Suture-augmented anterior cruciate ligament repair leads to comparable short-term function but a modestly higher re-rupture risk than anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aims: Interest in repairing ruptured anterior cruciate ligaments (ACL) has resurged, with suture tape augmentation (internal brace, ACL-IB) emerging as a prominent technique. However, the efficacy of ACL-IB compared to ACL reconstruction (ACL-R) remains unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis to address this gap. Methods: Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, a search to PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central for studies comparing ACL-IB to ACL-R was performed. The main endpoints were patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and failure rate. Muscle and joint function and surgery time were also assessed. Statistical analysis was performed by Review Manager 5.1.7. Results: Nine studies comprising 1049 patients were included; 381 (36.3 %) underwent ACL-IB. Hamstring autografts were used for ACL-R in 421 patients (63.0 %). Most studies (6 of 8) reported follow-up longer than two years. The failure rate was higher in the ACL-IB group (risk ratio 3.62; 95 % CI 1.16 to 11.33; p = 0.03; I Conclusions: ACL-IB had a higher failure rate compared to ACL-R. However, ACL-IB showed better hamstring strength and KOOS symptom score. No significant differences were seen in other PROs, time to return to sports, or quadriceps strength.
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.