ReviewJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
One-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Preoperative evaluation, planning and surgical techniques. A review of current concepts.
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.
- Higher revision and secondary surgery rates after ACL reconstruction in athletes under 16 compared to those over 16: a case-control study.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2025Article
- One-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Preoperative evaluation, planning and surgical techniques. A review of current concepts.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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The increased rate of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears has led to a greater number of revisions. Revision surgery can be performed in one or two stages. Single-stage revision ACL reconstruction (ssRACLR) may be performed when prior tunnels can be re-used or bypassed whereas a two-stage procedure is indicated when bone grafting of dilated tunnels prior to revision is necessary. While both approaches have shown similar functional outcomes and failure risk, ssRACLR is preferred, when possible, to avoid the increased morbidity, inconvenience and cost associated with two-stage RACLR. In adequately planning for RACLR, a surgeon should investigate the mechanism and timing of injury as well as the previous graft selection, associated pathology and the tunnel placement and size. It is especially important to obtain radiographs and three-dimensional imaging including magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and computed tomography (CT), which allow the surgeon to accurately evaluate the entire tunnel architecture to determine surgical staging. Following a detailed assessment of the pathoanatomy, the surgeon may determine graft and hardware type, tunnel placement and utilization of lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) and other procedures. In our experience, ssRACLR can be carried out for over 90% of revision cases with creative pre-operative planning using autograft with bone plug(s), divergent tunnel creation on the femur (when necessary) and convergent tunnel creation on the tibia (when appropriate) and suspensory or interference fixation as needed. In revision scenarios, we believe that autografts with bone plugs provide the best opportunity for graft healing and incorporation and that LET can be a useful adjunct to reduce re-tear rates. The purpose of this review is to report on the preoperative considerations and surgical techniques for performing ssRACLR, as well as the outcomes. Level of Evidence: Level V expert opinion.
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.