Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40276799›Full record

ReviewIndian journal of orthopaedics2025

Graft Options for the Reconstruction of Multi-ligament Knee Injury: A Systematic Review.

Joshi Amit, Regmi Subhash, Poudel Pranodan, Basukala Bibek

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 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. Article
  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

4 authors.

Joshi AmitAKB Center for Arthroscopy, Sports Injury, and Regenerative Medicine, Department of Orthopedics, B. & B. Hospital, Gwarko, Lalitpur, Nepal.ORCID 0000-0001-6715-4328
Regmi SubhashAKB Center for Arthroscopy, Sports Injury, and Regenerative Medicine, Department of Orthopedics, B. & B. Hospital, Gwarko, Lalitpur, Nepal.
Poudel PranodanAKB Center for Arthroscopy, Sports Injury, and Regenerative Medicine, Department of Orthopedics, B. & B. Hospital, Gwarko, Lalitpur, Nepal.
Basukala BibekAKB Center for Arthroscopy, Sports Injury, and Regenerative Medicine, Department of Orthopedics, B. & B. Hospital, Gwarko, Lalitpur, Nepal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The literature lacks enough synthesis on which autograft option is suitable for a particular ligament reconstruction during multi-ligament reconstruction. This study aims to conduct a systematic review of existing literature to determine graft options available for the reconstruction of various ligaments in the context of multi-ligament knee injury. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following the preferred research items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. It was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024498917). Studies that met the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were included in this systematic review. Results: Out of 8070 identified citations, 16 studies with a total of 640 patients(645 knees), including 420(65.6%) males and 220(34.4%) females, with a mean age of 35.1 years were included. Among 16 papers included in this review, combining autografts, allografts, or synthetic grafts was the preferred choice in seven studies. Autografts were chosen in five research studies, while allografts were preferred in four. For Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) reconstruction: Eleven studies used only autografts, two used only allografts, and 1 study used both autografts and allografts. For Posterior Cruciate Ligament (PCL) reconstruction, nine studies used allografts, six used autografts, and 1 study used synthetic graft. For Posterior Lateral Corner (PLC) reconstruction, six studies used allografts, five used autografts, and 1 study used synthetic graft. For posterior medial corner (PMC) reconstruction, eight studies used autografts, five used allografts, and only one used synthetic grafts. Conclusion: A combination of autografts, allografts, or synthetic grafts was the preferred graft option for multi-ligament knee reconstruction. Autografts are the most preferred option for ACL and PMC reconstruction, whereas allografts are the most preferred option for PCL and PLC reconstruction. The most preferred autograft was the Hamstring Tendon (HT) autograft. Similarly, the tendoachillies (TA) was the most used allograft. However, the strength of the evidence in this review is moderate to low.

Indexed as

AllograftsAutograftsKnee dislocationsMINORSMLKIMulti-ligament knee injury

Identifiers

PMID40276799
PMCPMC12014997

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.