ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2025
A meta-analysis of the hamstring tendon strands reconstruction in ACL: Functional outcomes based on strands number.
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 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.
- A meta-analysis of the hamstring tendon strands reconstruction in ACL: Functional outcomes based on strands number.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Comparing the effectiveness and safety of four-, five-, six- and eight-strand hamstring tendon graft topologies for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) restoration was the aim of this meta-analysis. In order to provide evidence-based recommendations for graft selection, the study sought to assess clinical and functional results, including graft diameter, postoperative stability, graft failure rates, and patient-reported functional outcomes. Methods: This systematic review used the PICOS methodology and adhered to PRISMA standards. Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies contrasting four-strand hamstring grafts with alternative designs for ACL restoration were among the studies that qualified. The databases PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS and Cochrane were searched extensively for relevant material. Independent data extraction was done, and disagreements were settled by consensus. Graft diameter, patient-reported scores (Lysholm, IKDC), stability (as determined by KT-1000/2000 arthrometers), and graft failure rates were among the results. Heterogeneity-level-based fixed- and random-effects models were used in the statistical study. Results: Eight studies with 1161 participants were analyzed. Multi-strand grafts (five- and six-strands) demonstrated increased graft diameters and superior stability compared to four-strand grafts. The four-strand configuration had significantly lower Lysholm and Tegner scores and smaller graft diameters. However, no significant differences in IKDC scores or revision rates were found between four- and five-strand groups. Clinical tests (Lachman, pivot-shift) showed no significant differences across graft types. Conclusion: Multi-strand hamstring grafts (≥five strands) offer advantages, such as larger graft diameters and improved stability, over four-strand grafts. However, these benefits did not consistently translate into superior patient-reported outcomes or lower revision rates. The success of ACL reconstruction is multifactorial, involving graft selection, surgical techniques, and individual patient factors. Further studies are necessary to optimize graft configuration and long-term outcomes. 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.