ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2026
Surgical caseload and annual volume influence cartilage treatment strategies in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate how surgeon and clinic volume, along with patient-, injury- and surgery-related factors, influence cartilage injury management in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).
methodsThis retrospective cohort study analysed cartilage treatment (debridement, microfracture, other methods or left in situ) in patients undergoing primary ACLR (2008-2022) using data from the Swedish Knee Ligament Registry. Surgeons and clinics were categorised by registry caseload (low [LC]: <50 ACLRs/surgeon, <500/clinic; high [HC]: ≥50, ≥500) and annual volume (low [LV]: <29 ACLRs/year/surgeon, <56/year/clinic; high [HV]: ≥29, ≥56), yielding four groups: LCLV, LCHV, HCLV, and HCHV. Factors influencing cartilage treatment were assessed using adjusted multivariable logistic regression.
resultsMore than one in four patients (11,729, 26.4%) had cartilage injuries at the time of primary ACLR; 17.9% underwent debridement, 7.1% microfracture and 1.4% other treatments. A higher proportion of HCHV surgeons had performed debridement (81.2% vs. 48.8%-64.3%), microfracture (78.6% vs. 24.4%-51.0%) and other methods (32.5% vs. 3.8%-13.4%) during ACLR compared to all other surgeon groups (all p < 0.001). HCHV clinics were more likely to treat cartilage injuries, leaving fewer in situ (79.2% vs. 80.3%-85.2%, p < 0.001) Adjusted logistic regression analyses showed that LCLV/LCHV clinics had 43.4%-68.5% higher odds of performing microfracture, and that LCHV/HCLV clinics had 41.3%-48.1% lower odds of performing debridement compared to HCHV clinics, all p ≤ 0.023. Microfracture and debridement odds increased with ICRS 3-4 lesions and decreased with non-medial femoral condyle injuries and delayed surgery. Age > 30 years and recent surgery year increased debridement odds, while lesion size ≥ 2 cm² lowered microfracture odds.
conclusionSurgeons with the highest caseload and volume performed the broadest range of cartilage treatment techniques, yet treatment strategies appeared driven more by clinic caseload and volume. Cartilage management was also influenced by injury location, size, depth, patient age, time to surgery and year of surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
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.