ArticleJournal of orthopaedic translation2025
Chinese expert consensus on failure and revision after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic translation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Infection Following ACL Reconstruction: From Prevention to Treatment.The archives of bone and joint surgery · 2026Review
- "Multidisciplinary synergy driving innovation in orthopaedic translational medicine".Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2025Article
- Club-based vs. hospital-guided rehabilitation after ACL reconstruction in football participants: a two-year prospective cohort study.Frontiers in sports and active living · 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
68 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: With the recent rise in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction surgeries in China, a corresponding increase in surgical failures has been observed. Variability in primary surgical techniques and the intricacies of failure mechanisms have introduced significant challenges in diagnosing failures, planning procedures, and conducting revision surgeries. Methods: In response to these challenges, the Chinese Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons (CAOS) and the Chinese Society of Sports Medicine (CSSM) initiated the development of an expert consensus on ACL reconstruction failure and revision. Utilizing a modified Delphi method, 67 domestic experts from relevant fields were invited for consensus formulation and review. Results: The expert panel achieved a high degree of consensus on twelve key aspects. The consensus clearly defines ACL reconstruction failure and outlines multiple contributing factors, with surgical errors, especially incorrect bone tunnel placement, identified as primary causes. It also emphasizes the significant impact of patient-specific variables on the likelihood of failure. Recommendations for revision surgeries include careful determination of revision indications, preserving meniscal integrity to reduce the risk of joint degeneration, and a preference for single-stage or two-stage surgeries based on individual patient evaluations. A unified approach for managing bone defects remains absent, necessitating comprehensive assessments. Graft selection should be tailored to each patient, with autografts, allografts, or synthetic ligaments as viable options. For patients with a highly positive pivot shift test or those engaged in high-demand athletic activities, anterolateral structure augmentation or reconstruction is recommended. Conclusion: The consensus emphasizes the critical need for individualized approaches in ACL revision surgery. By clearly defining failure criteria and outlining strategies for surgical revisions, these statements are expected to serve as a guide for refining clinical practice, reducing complications, and improving surgical outcomes. The translational potential of this article: 1)
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.