ReviewArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2025
Patients Have Similar Clinical Outcomes and Failure Rates After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Tibialis Anterior Tendon, Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone, Hamstring Tendon, or Achilles Tendon Allografts: A Systematic Review.
Review in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare postoperative outcomes and functionality in patients who undergo primary allograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with tibialis anterior (TA) tendon, bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB), hamstring tendon (HT), and Achilles tendon allografts. Methods: In April 2024, a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Studies were included if they evaluated primary ACLR using allograft, were prospective randomized controlled trials or retrospective studies, compared outcomes in patients undergoing primary ACLR with different allograft types, and were published between 2000 and 2024. Data collection included patient demographic characteristics, graft type, activity level, drilling technique, concomitant and augmentation procedures, patient-reported outcome measures, complications, and graft rerupture rates. Pooling of data was avoided, and qualitative data comparison was conducted. Results: The initial search identified 957 studies, 7 of which were included in this systematic review. Of these, 5 were randomized controlled trials and 2 were retrospective studies. A total of 735 patients were included, with 167 HT patients, 252 BPTB patients, 162 TA patients, and 153 Achilles patients. The mean ages within the cohorts ranged from 23.9 to 37.2 years. The mean follow-up times across studies ranged from 25.6 to 90.0 months. Demographic characteristics were similar among the graft cohorts, and each study had a low risk of bias. Failure rates ranged from 2% to 65% across studies. Similar International Knee Documentation Committee, Lysholm, and Tegner scores were reported among the graft types. Additionally, similar functional outcomes as measured by side-by-side differences in arthrometer readings and similar complication rates after primary ACLR with HT, BPTB, TA, and Achilles allografts were found. Conclusions: Primary ACLR with allografts in patients older than 23 years is safe and effective with few differences in patient-reported outcomes, postoperative function, and graft failure rates among graft options. Level of Evidence: Level IV, systematic review of Level I to IV studies.
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.