ReviewJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
Greater return to sports after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction combined with anterolateral ligament reconstruction compared with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction alone: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of experimental 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.
- Comparable outcomes following combined ACL and ALL reconstruction using a 1-strand versus 2-strand back-and-forth technique: Propensity score matched study.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Greater return to sports after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction combined with anterolateral ligament reconstruction compared with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction alone: 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to compare the return to sports, return to competition, Tegner score and anterior cruciate ligament-return to sports injury (ACL-RSI) scores between patients who underwent ACL reconstruction (ACLR) combined with anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR) and those who underwent ACLR alone. Methods: Two independent reviewers conducted a literature search in PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library in July 2024, followed by data extraction and quality assessment. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and meta-analysis guidelines. The return to sports rate, return to competition rate, Tegner score and ACL-RSI score were compared between patients who underwent primary ACLR with ALLR and those who underwent isolated primary or revision ACLR. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed via the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and methodological items for nonrandomized studies. Results: In total, 12,139 studies were screened, and 14 (four randomized controlled trials and 10 nonrandomized studies) studies were ultimately evaluated. Compared with isolated ACLR, ACLR combined with ALLR resulted in a higher rate of return to sports and competition. Nevertheless, no significant differences were found in the Tegner score or ACL-RSI score between the two groups. Conclusion: Patients who underwent ACLR in combination with ALLR had higher rates of return to sports and competition, but their Tegner activity and ACL-RSI scores were similar to those of patients who underwent ACLR alone. This finding may assist surgeons in making decisions when treating patients undergoing ACLR, especially athletes. Level of Evidence: Level III.
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.