Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40910035›Full record

ReviewJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025

Suture-augmented anterior cruciate ligament repair leads to comparable short-term function but a modestly higher re-rupture risk than anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Alessandro Carrozzo, Émilie Bérard, Valerio Nasso, Edoardo Monaco, Jonathan Rioual, Régis Pailhé, Etienne Cavaignac

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Orthobiologics in anterior cruciate ligament injuries.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Alessandro CarrozzoDipartimento di Scienze della Vita, della Salute e delle Professioni Sanitarie Università degli Studi "Link Campus University" Rome Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0700-8139
Émilie BérardDepartment of Clinical Epidemiology and Public Health, CERPOP INSERM-University of Toulouse III Toulouse France.
Valerio NassoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, AOU Sant'Andrea La Sapienza University of Rome Rome Italy.
Edoardo MonacoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, AOU Sant'Andrea La Sapienza University of Rome Rome Italy.
Jonathan RioualResearch Methodological Support Unit (USMR), Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Public Health Toulouse University Hospital (CHU) Toulouse France.
Régis PailhéClinique Aguilera Ramsay Santé Biarritz Biarritz France.
Etienne CavaignacDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery Hôpital Pierre Paul Riquet, CHU de Toulouse Toulouse France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1043-7567

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis of the current literature on the treatment of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture with suture-augmented ACL repair (SA-ACLRep) compared to the gold standard ACL reconstruction (ACLR). The meta-analysis was designed to provide clinical outcomes, including re-rupture rates (as primary end point), knee stability, functional outcomes, return to sport and complications. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library up to 30 August 2024, in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Comparative clinical studies were included if they conducted a comparative analysis on the clinical outcome of SA-ACLRep versus ACLR with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up (FU). The primary outcome was ACL re-rupture rate; secondary outcomes included complications, knee stability (arthrometer measurements), patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and return-to-sport. A random effects model (based on the restricted maximum likelihood method) was used for all pooled analyses. Results: Four studies met the inclusion criteria and included 687 patients (276 SA-ACLRep and 411 ACLR). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of re-rupture rates (11.5% with SA-ACLRep and 8.4% with ACLR; Conclusions: SA-ACLRep with internal bracing and ACLR showed comparable short-term (≥24 months) FU results, with no statistically significant differences observed in re-rupture rates, PROMs or return-to-play rates. This may suggest that SA-ACLRep may be a viable alternative for appropriately indicated proximal ACL tears. Heterogeneity in study design, the small number of studies included, the repair timing and reconstruction techniques limit the generalizability of the results. Level of Evidence: Level III, meta-analysis of Levels II and III studies.

Indexed as

ACL reconstructionACL repairinternal bracere‐rupture ratessuture augmentation

Identifiers

PMID40910035
PMCPMC12406634

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.