ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2026
Primary repair versus reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: Functional outcomes and postural stability compared with healthy controls.
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 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.
- Primary repair versus reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: Functional outcomes and postural stability compared with healthy controls.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Article
- Advances in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Risk stratification, graft choices, and functional recovery in 2026.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare functional outcomes and postural stability in patients undergoing primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair or hamstring tendon reconstruction, using healthy individuals as a reference. We hypothesized that primary ACL repair would result in superior subjective knee function and postural stability.
methodsThis comparative case-control study assessed pain, function, single-leg hop performance and postural stability were assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Lysholm Knee Score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Score and Biodex Biosway indices (OSI: overall stability index, API: anteroposterior index, MLI: mediolateral index) in bipedal and single-leg stance. Statistical analyses included one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) or Kruskal-Wallis tests for group comparisons, with paired t-tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests for within-group comparisons, depending on data distribution.
resultsA total of 113 participants were analyzed: primary repair (primary repair group [PRG], n = 40), reconstruction (reconstruction group [RG], n = 38), and control (control group [CG], n = 35) groups. Mean follow-up was 43.2 ± 10.1 months in PRG and 43.9 ± 11.7 months in RG. VAS scores were 1.37 ± 1.56 in PRG and 1.89 ± 1.62 in RG (mean difference [MD] = 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.19 to 1.23, p = 0.15). Lysholm scores were 92.6 ± 6.95 in PRG and 89.5 ± 9.09 in RG (MD = -3.02, 95% CI: -6.66 to 0.61, p = 0.10). IKDC scores were significantly higher in PRG (88.2 ± 9.01) than RG (82.6 ± 12.1) (MD = 5.63, 95% CI: 0.84 to 10.42, p = 0.02). On the operated side, MLI was lower in PRG (0.2 ± 0.3) than RG (0.3 ± 0.2) (MD = -0.05, 95% CI: 0.008 to 0.11, p = 0.02), indicating better mediolateral stability. Single-leg hop distance was shorter in RG (1.40 ± 0.28 m) and PRG (1.43 ± 0.27 m) compared with CG (1.62 ± 0.18 m) (CG vs. RG: MD = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.36; CG vs. PRG: MD = 0.18, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.33; p = 0.001), despite LSI values exceeding 90% (RG: 93.1 ± 8.5%; PRG: 95.1 ± 6.3%).
conclusionsPrimary anterior cruciate ligament repair provides comparable functional and postural outcomes to reconstruction and may offer superior subjective knee function and mediolateral balance in selected patients. 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.