ReviewJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
Impact of tibial supplementary fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction for soft tissue auto and allografts: Modest enhancement in stability and increased incidence of pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Tibial Cortical Button Fixation and Bioabsorbable Interference Screw Plus U-Staple Fixation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Impact of tibial supplementary fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction for soft tissue auto and allografts: Modest enhancement in stability and increased incidence of pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate whether the joint function, stability and safety of tibial supplementary fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is superior compared with tibial screw fixation alone. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched, tracking until 12 April 2025. Eligible studies included published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and low-risk cohort studies comparing clinical outcomes and complications between tibial screw interference with supplementary fixation (Group I) and tibial screw interference alone or with a sheath (Group II). RCTs were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, while cohort studies were evaluated with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Methodological index for non-randomized studies. Model selection (random or fixed-effects) was based on data heterogeneity. Results: This meta-analysis included eight studies with 943 patients (Group I: 386, Group II: 557). Group I showed no significant differences in side-to-side difference (SSD) in the sheath subgroup at 24 months, SSD <3 mm at 9.1 kg at 12 and 24 months, or manual maximum testing at 24 months, Pivot test at 8-12 and 24 months, Lachman test at 8-12 months, International Knee Documentation Committee objective and subjective score at 24 months compared to Group II. Group I demonstrated statistically significant reductions in SSD (mean difference: -1.02; 95% CI: -1.79 to -0.25; Conclusion: Enhanced supplementary tibial fixation with soft tissue autografts and allografts offers similar joint function and a modest enhancement of stability compared to tibial interference screw fixation alone, but is associated with a higher incidence of pain. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort studies have been analysed, alongside RCTs, and thus this is the level of evidence.
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.