ReviewJournal of functional morphology and kinesiology2026
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Failure: Etiology, Classification, and Revision Strategies-A Narrative Review.
Review in Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology, 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.
- Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Clinical Outcomes and Biomechanical Considerations of Graft Selection-A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Osteoinductive and Biocompatibility Assessment of a 3D-Printed Polymeric-Hydroxyapatite Composite Interference Screw.Polymers · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is a common orthopedic procedure, but graft failure remains a significant complication, particularly in young and active individuals. Understanding the multifactorial etiology of failure and optimizing revision strategies are crucial for improving outcomes. A structured narrative review of the literature was conducted, including studies published from January 2000 to May 2024. Databases searched included PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Google Scholar. Eligible studies addressed definitions, etiology, classification, and surgical management of ACL reconstruction failure. Data were synthesized qualitatively, integrating evidence on technical, biological, and traumatic causes, as well as neuromuscular and psychosocial factors influencing functional outcomes. ACL reconstruction failure is primarily caused by technical errors, particularly tunnel malposition (60-70% of cases), followed by traumatic (15-25%) and biological (10-15%) mechanisms. Failure timing provides diagnostic clues: early (<3 months) failures often relate to fixation or infection, mid-term (3-12 months) to technical errors, and late (>12 months) to trauma or degeneration. Revision strategies include individualized graft selection, anatomical tunnel placement, repair of associated lesions, and consideration of biomechanical abnormalities. Overall success rates of revision procedures average 70-75%, with lower outcomes in adolescents and high-demand athletes. Emerging techniques, including lateral extra-articular tenodesis and biologic augmentation, may enhance revision outcomes, although long-term evidence remains limited. ACL reconstruction failure is a multifactorial event requiring thorough preoperative assessment, precise surgical planning, and individualized management. Addressing technical, biological, and neuromuscular factors, alongside patient-specific considerations, is essential to optimize functional outcomes and reduce failure rates. Future research should focus on standardized reporting, multicenter prospective studies, and advanced surgical planning tools to further improve revision success.
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.