ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
Can repair be an alternative to reconstruction in the management of acute anterior cruciate ligament rupture: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
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 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.
- Low Incidence of Osteoarthritis and Excellent Clinical Outcomes at Minimum 10 Years Following Primary Repair of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
- Can repair be an alternative to reconstruction in the management of acute anterior cruciate ligament rupture: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.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: To perform a meta-analysis to compare the clinical outcomes and failure rate of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair and ACL reconstruction in acute ACL rupture. Methods: Studies were searched on PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE for randomized controlled trials comparing ACL repair versus ACL reconstruction for ACL rupture. The bias risk was based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Clinical outcomes included IKDC score, Lysholm score, Tegner score, anteroposterior (AP) knee laxity, and failure rate. The funnel plots were used to detect publication bias. Results: Six randomized controlled study (RCTs) were included in this meta-analysis, involving a total of 478 patients. The mean follow-up varied from 1 to 5 years. The mean age of patients was between 17 and 29.1 years, the mean time from injury to surgery was 13-39 days. We found no statistical differences between ACL repair and ACLR in IKDC score (0.11; 95% CI, -0.17 to 0.40; Conclusion: ACL repair showed similar clinical outcomes compared with ACLR, and it could replace ACLR as an appropriate surgical method for acute proximal ACL rupture, but the indication and selection of patients are essential to be considered. Large numbers and more high-quality studies are still needed in the future to verify our results. Level of Evidence: Level I.
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.