ArticleCureus2025
Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructions at an Urban Tertiary Referral Center in Western India: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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
backgroundAnterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a surgery performed to achieve knee stability and allow the knee to return to the preinjury level. There has been a significant increase in the number of primary arthroscopic ACLRs in recent years. However, the increase in primary surgeries has led to a proportional rise in revision ACLRs, primarily due to failure of the index surgery resulting from various factors. MATERIALS AND
methodsHospital records from August 2020 to July 2023 were analyzed for revision ACLRs carried out at our center by a single surgeon with one year of postoperative follow-up. The patients who met the inclusion criteria and consented to participate in the study were called for clinical follow-up, and Lysholm scoring was performed to assess the functional outcome of the surgery.
resultsTwenty-eight patients met the inclusion criteria, 20 of whom consented to participate in the study. The mean age of the study population was 30.5 ± 6.82 years, with 85% (n=17) being males. There was a statistically significant difference in the Lysholm scores between primary and revision surgeries, with 50% (n=10) of patients having excellent outcomes (score >90) after index surgery and only 30% (n=6) falling into that category after revision surgery. There was a significant relationship between higher Lysholm scores and return to the preinjury level of play.
conclusionsRevision arthroscopic ACLRs have good functional outcomes in the short and medium terms and are excellent for restoring knee stability. However, the outcomes are fair compared with those of primary arthroscopic ACLRs.
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.