Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39844666›Full record

ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2025

No difference in ACL revision rates between hamstring and patellar tendon autograft in patients with ACL-R and a concurrent meniscal injury irrespective of meniscal treatment.

Johan Högberg, Lina Petersson, Bálint Zsidai, Alexandra Horvath, Riccardo Cristiani, Kristian Samuelsson, Eric Hamrin Senorski

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Johan HögbergSportrehab Sports Medicine Clinic, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7852-5603
Lina PeterssonDepartment of Orthopaedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Bálint ZsidaiSahlgrenska Sports Medicine Center, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Alexandra HorvathSahlgrenska Sports Medicine Center, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Riccardo CristianiDepartment of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Section of Sports Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Kristian SamuelssonSahlgrenska Sports Medicine Center, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Eric Hamrin SenorskiSportrehab Sports Medicine Clinic, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Funding

None
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aims of this study were to compare (1) the rate of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision and (2) subjective knee function using the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) between isolated ACL reconstruction (ACL-R) and ACL-R and concurrent meniscal injury, based on graft selection and meniscal treatment.

methodsData from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry were extracted in November 2022 for patients who underwent primary ACL-R. Patients were divided into two main groups based on graft choice: hamstring tendon (HT) or patellar tendon (PT) autograft, with four meniscal sub-groups: no injury, resection, repair or left in situ. The primary outcome was the rate of ACL revision within 5 years of primary ACL-R, and the secondary outcome was subjective knee function measured with the mean KOOS subscale scores and the rate of patients achieving a patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) at the 1-, 2- and 5-year follow-up.

resultsThe analysis of ACL revision was performed on 45,656 patients, and 7639 patients for the analysis of subjective knee function. The overall rate of ACL revision was 2.4% and 4.9% at 2 and 5 years, respectively. There were no differences in the rate of ACL revision within 5 years of primary surgery irrespective of graft choice or meniscal injury treatment. Patients with ACL-R and concurrent meniscal resection or meniscal injury left in situ achieved a PASS at the 1 (∆ = -11.3% to -29.5%), 2 (∆ = -12.7% to -40.3%) and 5-year (∆ = -12.0% to -30.6%) follow-up to a greater extent when receiving HT autograft compared to PT autograft.

conclusionGraft selection was not associated with ACL revision in patients with ACL-R and concurrent meniscal injury, regardless of meniscal injury treatment. Superior subjective knee function was reported by patients who underwent ACL-R with HT autograft compared with PT autograft where the injured meniscus was resected or left in situ. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Indexed as

Anterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesAnterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionHamstring TendonsPatellar LigamentReoperationTibial Meniscus InjuriesAdultAutograftsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRegistriesSwedenTransplantation, AutologousYoung Adultanterior cruciate ligamentgraft choiceKOOSmeniscusrevision

Identifiers

PMID39844666
PMCPMC12205421

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.