ArticleThe archives of bone and joint surgery2025
Differences in Clinical Outcomes and Rotational Stability Between Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction and Lemaire Lateral Tenodesis Following Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.
Article in The archives of bone and joint surgery, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Residual instability following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a common concern among young, active patients. Currently, two primary methods are used to address this matter: anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR) using a graft and lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET). This study aims to compare the Lemaire method for LET with ALLR in minimizing rotational instability after ACLR. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients with ACL ruptures who underwent simultaneous arthroscopic ACLR and either Lemaire lateral tenodesis or ALL reconstruction between April 2013 and March 2021. Patients were re-examined approximately 24 months post-operatively. We evaluated rotational instability using the pivot shift test, and anterior stability with the KT-1000 test. Outcomes were measured using the Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) questionnaires. Results: This study evaluated 53 patients who underwent ACLR using either the Lemaire method for LET (n=24) or ALLR technique (n=29). No substantial differences were observed in terms of age, sex, body mass index (BMI), number of physiotherapy sessions, time from injury to surgery, or the diameter of the ACL graft. Rotational stability was significantly better in the Lemaire group (16.7% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001). Although functional outcomes were higher in the Lemaire group, these differences were not statistically significant. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the surgical technique was the only significant predictor of rotational instability, with patients undergoing ALLR being 18.8 times more likely to experience a positive pivot shift (OR: 18.78, 95% CI: 4.34-81.18, P < 0.001). Conclusion: This retrospective cohort study suggests that Lemaire LET may be more effective than ALLR in minimizing rotational instability following arthroscopic ACLR. However, there was no superiority in functional scores between the groups.
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.