ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
Patients treated for infection following ACL reconstruction with graft removal have poorer outcomes than those treated with graft retention: A systematic review.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- AcuteThe Journal of international medical research · 2026Article
- Infection Following ACL Reconstruction: From Prevention to Treatment.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2026Review
- Patients treated for infection following ACL reconstruction with graft removal have poorer outcomes than those treated with graft retention: A systematic review.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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient outcomes following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) complicated by septic arthritis treated with graft retention versus graft removal protocols. Secondarily, this study aimed to evaluate surgical, demographic and microbial surgical indications for graft retention versus graft removal. We hypothesised that patients who underwent graft removal would have worse outcomes and that patients with septic arthritis caused by more virulent organisms, such as methicillin-resistant Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis of literature in the PubMed and Ovid databases regarding the treatment of septic arthritis following ACLR reporting graft retention versus graft removal was conducted. The included studies were published in English, in peer-reviewed journals, with an average minimum follow-up of 1 year, and reported on arthroscopic ACLR, surgical management of infection, graft retention versus graft removal during treatment and outcome measures. Patient demographic, surgical and outcome data were analysed. Results: Twenty-four studies reporting on 307 patients were included for analysis. Patients who underwent allograft ACLR ( Conclusions: Septic arthritis following ACLR is a devastating complication. Both graft retention and graft removal protocols have been reported and are viable options. Patients treated with graft removal had poorer outcome measures. Septic arthritis caused by Clinical Relevance: Septic arthritis following ACLR remains an uncommon, but difficult problem. There is minimal literature guiding graft retention versus graft removal treatment protocols. Level of Evidence: Level IV systematic review of lower-level studies.
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.