ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2026
Transitioning between medical equipment suppliers does not affect ACL reconstruction outcomes in a high-volume setting.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate whether changing medical equipment suppliers in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) influences surgical time, revision rates and subjective outcomes.
methodsA retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from the Swedish Knee Ligament Registry (SKLR). On 1 September 2016, Capio Artro Clinic, Stockholm, Sweden, changed its supplier for all medical equipment, from Smith & Nephew (SN) to Arthrex (AR). Patients who underwent primary ACLR during the preceding year (from 1 September 2015) formed group SN and were compared with patients operated between 1 September 2016 and 1 September 2017, divided into three consecutive 4-month cohorts (AR1-3) for temporal comparison. Primary outcome was surgical time. Secondary outcomes were revision rates at 2 and 5 years, and the aggregate Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS
resultsA total of 1175 patients underwent a primary ACLR during the study period. Group SN included 521 patients, and Groups AR1-3, 654. Of the 521 patients in Group SN, 488 (93.7%) had surgical time recorded, with a median of 61 (interquartile range [IQR]: 50-73) min. In Groups AR1-3, 560 patients (85.6%) had surgical time recorded, with median times of 63 (IQR: 52-78), 60 (IQR: 50-70) and 60 (IQR: 50-70) min, respectively, showing no significant differences. Of the included patients, 573 (48.8%) completed KOOS at the 2-year follow-up, with no significant differences between groups regarding MIC, PASS or TF. Within 2 years, 31 patients (2.6%) underwent revision ACLR, and after 5 years, an additional 21 patients, totalling 52 (4.4%), with no significant group differences.
conclusionExperienced ACL surgeons can transition between suppliers with acceptable outcomes, comparable surgical times and low complication rates. 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.