ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2026
Postcommercialisation outcomes of bridge-enhanced anterior cruciate ligament restoration: The first 100 Bridge registry patients.
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. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bridge-Enhanced Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair versus Autograft Reconstruction in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Surgery.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2026Review
- Low Failure Rates and Favorable Outcomes of Meniscal Repair With Concomitant Anterior Cruciate Ligament Primary Repair at Minimum 2-Year Follow-up.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
- Primary anterior cruciate ligament repair with suture tape augmentation: indications, failure predictors, clinical outcomes, and evidence gaps.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2026Review
- Various Technique Modifications of BEAR ACL Restoration.Video journal of sports medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo review adverse events and outcomes at least 1 year postoperatively from Bridge enhanced ACL restoration (BEAR) in the first 100 subjects of the Bridge registry, a postcommercialisation prospective cohort.
methodsConsecutive BEAR patients were invited to enroll in the Bridge registry. Technique modifications, adverse events and reoperations were recorded. Physical examinations and patient reported outcomes (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC], knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score [KOOS], Marx and return to sport index [RSI]) were reported at 0, 6, 9 and 12 months.
resultsOf the 100 subjects, 94 enrolled postoperatively. Four exited the study. Mean follow up was 15.3 ± 4.7 months. The mean age was 31.3 ± 14.3 years. 67% were female. Classic and modified techniques were each used in 50 cases. The rates of adverse events and reoperations at 1 year were: one deep venous thrombosis, two meniscal injuries without anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) retear and eight reoperations (one debridement, two manipulations, three suture removals, one partial lateral meniscectomy and one medial meniscus repair). Adverse events between 1 and 2 years included one recurrent ACL tear with associated meniscus tears, two meniscal injuries without ACL tear, and one isolated ACL tear. Overall reoperation rate was 8.3% (8/96) at 1 year and 11.5% (11/96) at final follow-up, with 0% ACL retear at 1 year and 2.1% (2/96) ACL retear at final follow-up. Mean IKDC, Marx and RSI scores at 12 months were (N = 79), respectively 82.7 ± 14.6, 7.5 ± 5.36 and 66.6 ± 24.06. Mean KOOS pain, function daily living and function sports and recreational activities were: 92.7 ± 8.6, 96.7 ± 6.0 and 82.0 ± 18.5. Lachman (N = 75) was 0-2 mm in 80.0% (60/75) and 3-5 mm in 20.0% (15/75). Pivot shift (N = 73) was negative in 90.4% (66/73), grade 1 in 8.2% (6/73) and grade 2 in 1.4% (1/73) at 12 months.
conclusionThe rates of adverse events of BEAR with and without modification are low at 1 year. Excellent stability and ROM are attained at 1 year. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: BEAR has promising results in postcommercial utilization and is as an alternative to reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II cohort study.
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.