ReviewJournal of experimental orthopaedics2026
Hamstring autografts favour knee extension strength recovery while quadriceps autografts optimise flexion strength recovery: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials.
Review in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2026. 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.
- Significant variability in limb symmetry across four different knee flexion strength tests after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Hamstring autografts favour knee extension strength recovery while quadriceps autografts optimise flexion strength recovery: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Quadriceps tendon (QT), hamstring tendon (HT) and patellar tendon (PT) autografts are the most common grafts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). However, the specific impact of graft selection on postoperative knee extension and flexion strength remains controversial. This systematic review analysed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing isokinetic muscle strength outcomes following primary ACLR using QT, HT or PT autografts. Methods: A systematic review was conducted by searching Medline (PubMed), Epistemonikos and ScienceDirect (January 2014-10 May 2025) to identify RCTs that included patients aged ≥16 years undergoing primary, unilateral ACLR using an ipsilateral QT, HT or PT autograft. Studies had to report isokinetic strength outcomes at predefined postoperative intervals (approximately 3, 6, 12 and/or ≥ 24 months) and at one or more angular velocities. The PRISMA guidelines were followed for literature analysis. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted and appraised data using the JBI Checklist for RCTs. A narrative synthesis was performed due to significant clinical and methodological heterogeneity among the included studies. Results: Of 1509 records screened, 13 RCTs met the criteria, encompassing 5 studies using QT, 13 HT and 4 PT. The synthesis revealed distinct recovery patterns: HT autografts showed more favourable recovery of knee extension strength, particularly between 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Conversely, QT autografts consistently resulted in superior recovery of knee flexor strength across all follow-up periods. The results for PT autografts were heterogeneous, showing some short-term advantages but no consistent superiority. Patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) generally improved in all groups, though patterns varied by instrument and time point. Conclusion: Current evidence indicates graft-specific profiles of strength recovery after ACLR, with HT autografts favouring knee extension and QT autografts favouring knee flexion recovery. However, heterogeneity in testing protocols, angular velocities and the reporting of limb symmetry indices limits the strength of these conclusions. Level of Evidence: Level I.
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.