SynthesisJournal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology2025
Application of internal brace ligament augmentation technique in knee ligament injury: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAnterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries are common and can lead to significant knee instability and an increased risk of long-term cartilage damage. Given the emerging role of internal brace ligament augmentation (IBLA) in treating these injuries, this systematic review aimed to evaluate the collective evidence on the safety and effectiveness of IBLA in patients with anterior cruciate ligament injury.
methodsWe systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases until July 2025. The literature was screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and data were extracted. The extracted key data included the International Knee Documentation Committee score (IKDC), Tegner score, Lysholm score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index score (WOMAC), Marx Activity Scale, visual analogue scale (VAS), and the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12). The quality of nonrandomized trials was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS).
resultsSystematic screening identified 11 studies (n = 676 patients) for analysis. Patient-reported outcomes demonstrated significant improvements post-intervention. Meta-analyses demonstrated statistically significant increases in KOOS (MD = 36.86, 95% CI: 32.51-41.20, p < 0.01), VR-12 (MD = 16.62, 95% CI:14.75-18.49, p < 0.01), and decreases in visual analog scale (VAS) (MD = -2.82, 95% CI: -3.40 to -2.25, p < 0.01). Lysholm (postoperative 89-94) and IKDC scores (postoperative 85-91) approached or exceeded pre-injury levels. Tegner scores remained stable near pre-injury levels (5.33-6.4). Marx activity scores showed a significant decrease (MD = -3.84, 95% CI: -6.19 to -1.49, p < 0.01), potentially indicating postoperative activity adaptation. Study heterogeneity was noted. All included studies demonstrated mild to high quality.
conclusionsIBLA appears to be a promising technique for improving functionality, stability, and pain management in anterior cruciate ligament injury. However, the current evidence is significantly constrained by small sample sizes, a predominance of low-quality studies, and a lack of long-term comparative data. Therefore, further rigorous, high-quality research is required to definitively establish the safety and long-term effectiveness of IBLA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 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.