ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2025
The Durability of Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Comparison of Patients at <5 Years and ≥5 Years After Revision.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Overall outcomes of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) are well documented, although the durability of results, to the best of the authors' knowledge, has not been compared between short-term and midterm follow-up. Purpose: The primary aim was to assess the durability of revision ACLR outcomes at <5 years after revision (short-term) to outcomes at ≥5 years after revision (midterm). For this study's purposes, durability was defined as not requiring additional revision surgery or the maintenance of good patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The secondary aims were to compare the outcomes between male and female patients, between patients with allografts and those with autografts, and between patients with traumatic mechanisms of a rerupture and those with atraumatic mechanisms of a rerupture. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: This was a retrospective chart review with the prospective collection of PROs in 53 knees that underwent revision ACLR. PROs included scores for the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Marx activity rating scale, ACL-Return to Sport after Injury scale, visual analog scale for pain, and satisfaction. The time to return to sport or activity and the incidence of reruptures were collected as well. Data were analyzed via the Mann-Whitney Results: The mean follow-up from first revision surgery was 5.29 ± 2.96 years (range, 2.0-20.5 years) for the entire cohort. No significant differences in outcomes were found between the short-term (<5 years from revision; 21/53 knees) and midterm (≥5 years from revision; 32/53 knees) groups, except in satisfaction (4.0/5 vs 2.5/5, respectively; Conclusion: Our study demonstrates that revision ACLR offered patients durable results after the failure of primary ACLR from short-term to midterm follow-up. Patient sex and graft choice did not drastically affect postoperative outcomes. Orthopaedic surgeons may decide, based on their clinical acumen, which graft choice is best for the individual patient and be confident that revision ACLR can achieve desirable results for patients, regardless of the reinjury mechanism and sex. Future work on this topic is needed to look at long-term results.
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.