ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
All-inside single-bundle and modified double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques guarantee stability and similar clinical results at over 5 year follow-up.
Article 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Modified Anatomical All-Inside Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Technique.Arthroscopy techniques · 2026Article
- All-Inside and Conventional Techniques in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Retrospective Comparison Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Functional Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Through a Single Bone Tunnel Using Hamstring Tendon Autografts With Preserved Insertions.Arthroscopy techniques · 2025Article
- All-inside single-bundle and modified double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques guarantee stability and similar clinical results at over 5 year follow-up.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of the present study was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes between the all-inside single bundle (SB) and a modified double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions (ACLR) at over 5-year follow-up. Methods: This is an observational, retrospective comparative, two-centre study. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, and anterior tibial translation (ATT) was assessed using the KT-1000 arthrometer. Knee x-ray images were recorded, classified according to the KL grading and compared with radiographs of the same patient before surgery. Inclusion criteria were patients undergoing ACLR, age between 18 and 45 years and negative knee history of major traumatic events after surgery. Exclusion criteria were congenital laxity, combined multiple knee ligament injuries, patients undergoing ACL revision surgery, history of infection, lower limb coronal axial deviation >5°, patients undergoing lateral extra-articular tenodesis or anterolateral ligament reconstruction, patients with chondral damage Outerbridge grade >2, patients with meniscal tears undergoing subtotal meniscectomy or meniscal repair and patients with knee OA Kellgren-Lawrance (KL) grade >3. Results: One hundred and fifty-two patients were included in the study. Patients were divided into two groups according to surgical technique: Group A-ACLR with all-inside technique, and Group B-ACLR with modified DB technique. There were no statistical differences between groups for age, side, gender or time since surgery.There were no statistically significant differences between groups for Lysholm scores ( Conclusions: Our data show significant improvements in all clinical outcome measures, along with excellent KT-1000 arthrometer values and low clinical failure rates for both the SB all-inside and modified DB techniques at a mean follow-up of over 6 years. There were no significant differences in arthritic progression according to KL grade between groups. 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.