ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2025
Osteoarthritis Development and Clinical Outcomes After Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Surgery: A Matched Case-Control Study With 10-Year Follow-up.
Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 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.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Failure after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction occurs in 3% to 30% of all patients. However, not all failures necessitate a revision surgery. Revision ACL reconstruction (ACLR) presents significant challenges for both the surgeon and the patient, and limited research has been conducted regarding long-term functional outcomes and the potential increased risk of osteoarthritis (OA). Purpose/Hypothesis: This study evaluates the long-term radiographic and clinical outcomes after revision ACLR compared with those of primary ACLR. It was hypothesized that revision ACLR results in a higher incidence of OA and inferior functional and patient-reported outcomes. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A retrospective follow-up compared patients with revision ACLR to a matched group of primary reconstruction (matched by sex, age, and surgery date). After a median of 9.7 years, OA was assessed using the Kellgren-Lawrence (K-L) classification.Clinical outcome assessment included Patient-Reported Outcome Measures and knee laxity testing. Results: A total of 273 patients were included, 140 ACL revisions and 133 primary ACLRs. Radiographic evidence of OA (K-L grade ≥2) was present in 67% of the revision group versus 33% in the primary ACL group ( Conclusion: Patients undergoing revision ACLR exhibit worse long-term functional outcomes and a higher prevalence of OA compared with patients undergoing primary ACLR. A longer time from injury to follow-up, meniscal injury, and a high BMI at the index surgery independently increased the odds of developing OA. Despite the inferior results, patients undergoing revision reconstruction experience significant improvements in both subjective scores and clinical findings, and report a high level of satisfaction.
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.