ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
Combined anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and lateral meniscal root repair yields low failure rates, but inferior subjective outcomes compared to isolated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A comparative study of independent tunnel and anterior cruciate ligament bone tunnel techniques.
Article 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.
- Good mid-term outcomes and over 80% survivorship rate after all-inside repair of bucket-handle and full-thickness radial tears.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Combined anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and lateral meniscal root repair yields low failure rates, but inferior subjective outcomes compared to isolated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A comparative study of independent tunnel and anterior cruciate ligament bone tunnel techniques.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To assess the functional and subjective outcomes of combined anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and lateral meniscal root tear (LMRT) repair. Additionally, to compare the use of an independent tunnel for LMRT repair with the ACL bone tunnel technique and to assess the failure rates of LMRT repair to isolated ACLR. Methods: Patients who underwent primary ACLR and concomitant LMRT repair from May 2017 to May 2022 at Capio Artro Clinic, Stockholm, Sweden, were retrospectively identified and matched 1:3 (age, sex and graft type) with patients who underwent isolated ACLR during the same period. Functional outcomes, including range of motion (ROM), anterior knee laxity and isokinetic strength, were assessed preoperatively and at 6 months, and the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) at 2 years. Failure of LMRT repair was defined as the need for reoperation with meniscal resection during the follow-up period. Results: A total of 84 patients were included (mean age 31.1 ± 11.1 years; 61.9% male). LMRT repair failure occurred in 7.1% of cases. No significant differences were observed between tunnel techniques in ROM, laxity, or strength. At 2 years, KOOS scores were significantly lower in the ACLR + LMRT group compared to the isolated ACLR group in pain (86.1 ± 15.2 vs. 91.3 ± 13.3, Conclusion: Combined ACLR and LMRT repair resulted in a 7.1% failure rate. However, the addition of LMRT repair results in lower subjective outcomes compared to isolated ACLR. The use of an independent tibial tunnel for LMRT repair does not confer additional clinical benefit over the shared ACL tunnel technique. 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.