ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2025
Histological Analysis of Bridge-Enhanced ACL Restoration (BEAR) Tissue in Ligament Retears.
Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bridge-enhanced anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) restoration (BEAR) surgery has demonstrated, through clinical outcomes and magnetic resonance imaging evaluation, the ability to restore the injured native ACL. However, the integrity of the quality of the tissue restored has yet to be studied histologically in the setting of retear. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the histologic composition of BEAR procedure retear tissue in human patients. It was hypothesized that tissue biopsy specimens taken at the location of retear after BEAR procedures will resemble torn native ACL tissue. Study Design: Case Series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Patients undergoing revision ACL surgery after a failed BEAR procedure were consented for tissue biopsy at their treating institution. Tissue biopsy specimens were taken at several locations across the site of the retear, with cluster biopsy specimens taken at the retear site. Hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides were prepared and examined by a single pathologist. The intraoperative location of retear was recorded to be cross-referenced with the original site of tear based on the Sherman classification. Histologic parameters (0-4) included presence of acute inflammation, lymphocytes, eosinophils, macrophages, giant cells, organisms/evidence of infection, evidence of neovascularization, and fatty infiltrate. Foreign material, malignancy, ligamentous/fibrous tissue, and synovial tissue were assessed. The appearance of the tissue in relation to normal-appearing ACL was also evaluated. Results: Five patients were identified for inclusion. The retear of the BEAR and analysis occurred at a mean of 482.4 days (16 months) (range, 366-623 days [12-20.7 months]) after implantation. No cases demonstrated evidence of acute inflammation (neutrophilic infiltrate), while lymphocytic infiltrate was noted in all cases, ranging from rare (80%) to heavy infiltrate (20%). Foreign materials from previous procedures were present in 2 cases (40%) with associated histiocytic infiltrate and giant cells. Ligamentous tissue and synovial tissue were noted in all cases (100%) with evidence of neovascularization. Fatty tissue was identified in 3 cases (60%), while no cases showed evidence of organisms/infection or malignancy. Absence of grossly fibrotic tissue was noted at the biopsy sites. Conclusion: Histological evaluation of BEAR retears in human patients supports the hypothesis that the tissue restored by the implant is similar to native ACL collagen.
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.