ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2026
Comparable outcomes following combined ACL and ALL reconstruction using a 1-strand versus 2-strand back-and-forth technique: Propensity score matched study.
Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare post-operative laxity and clinical outcomes following combined anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction with hamstring grafts using a 1-strand versus 2-strand back-and-forth technique. Methods: The authors retrospectively assessed a consecutive series of 348 patients (348 knees), that underwent combined ACL and ALL reconstruction using the 2-strand technique, and 130 patients (130 knees), that underwent combined ACL and ALL reconstruction using 1-strand technique between January 2020 and December 2022. Propensity score matching was performed to establish two comparable study cohorts. Patients underwent pre- and postoperative assessment by one observer using Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS-12), Lysholm, Tegner, and ACL-RSI scores. Physical examinations included a jerk test, and the attribution of a Lachman grade. Postoperatively, patients were assessed using the Dyneelax arthrometer on both knees to measure the differential laxity in anterior translation (AT) and internal rotation (IR). Results: Propensity score matching resulted in 70 patients in the 2-strand group, and 70 patients in 1-strand group. Post-operatively, 18 patients were lost to follow up, and five patients underwent revision surgery due to a retear. This left a final cohort of 58 patients in the 2-strand group, aged 30.5 ± 8.1 (range, 18-52), with a BMI of 25.8 ± 4.3 (range, 20-37.8), and 59 patients in the 1-strand group, aged 30.7 ± 10.7 (range, 15-55), with a BMI of 26.5 ± 3.9 (range 16.9-38.6). At a mean follow-up of 2.4 ± 0.4 years, there were no significant differences between the groups in terms of differential laxity in AT, IR, KOOS-12, ACL-RSI, Lysholm, Tegner scores, and retear rates. Conclusion: There was no significant difference between the 1- and 2-strand techniques for combined ACL and ALL reconstruction in terms of post-operative laxity, functional and clinical outcomes, including return to sport and Tegner activity level, suggesting that both techniques are equally effective in restoring knee stability and function. Level of Evidence: Level IV, case series.
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.