ReviewCureus2026
Peroneus Longus Tendon Versus Hamstring Tendon Autograft for Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction remains one of the most commonly performed orthopedic procedures worldwide, with graft selection representing a key determinant of postoperative outcomes. In recent years, the peroneus longus tendon has emerged as a promising alternative to the traditionally used hamstring tendon autograft. Previous meta-analyses have suggested comparable or favorable outcomes; however, several new randomized controlled trials and observational studies have since been published, necessitating an updated synthesis of the evidence. This systematic review and meta-analysis, therefore, aims to comprehensively evaluate and compare the clinical, functional, and stability outcomes of peroneus longus tendon versus hamstring tendon autografts in primary ACL reconstruction. A systematic literature search was conducted across PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase from inception until January 2026. Studies comparing the peroneus longus tendon with hamstring tendon autografts reporting at least one predefined outcome were eligible for inclusion. A total of 32 studies comprising 10 randomized controlled trials and 22 observational studies were included. Pooled analyses were performed using random-effects models, with outcomes reported as mean differences (MDs) or odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals. No statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score (MD: -0.74, 95% CI: -1.58 to 0.09) or Lysholm score (MD: -0.50, 95% CI: -1.17 to 0.18). Additionally, objective knee stability measures, including the anterior drawer, Lachman, and pivot shift tests, were also not significantly different between the two groups. Subgroup analysis of randomized controlled trials demonstrated significantly higher IKDC and Lysholm scores in the peroneus longus tendon group. Patients in the hamstring tendon group exhibited significantly greater thigh circumference reduction compared to the peroneus longus tendon group (MD: 0.92 cm, 95% CI: 0.72 to 1.11), indicating more pronounced donor site muscle atrophy. Ankle function, assessed by American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores, remained comparable between groups. Peroneus longus tendon autograft demonstrates comparable functional and stability outcomes to hamstring tendon autograft while offering superior preservation of thigh muscle mass. These findings support its consideration as a viable alternative graft option in primary ACL reconstruction, particularly in patients where minimizing knee donor site morbidity is a priority.
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.