ReviewJournal of experimental orthopaedics2026
Remnant-preserving anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring autograft yields the lowest re-rupture rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
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. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Remnant-preserving anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (RP-ACLR) has garnered interest due to its potential biological benefits. This study aimed to compare graft survival, complication and reoperation rates between RP-ACLR and standard remnant-sacrificing techniques (non-remnant-preserving ACLR [NP-ACLR]), with subgroup analysis by graft type. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library up to June 2025. Study selection, data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment (using Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions [ROBINS-I]) were performed independently by two reviewers, with discrepancies resolved by a third. Inclusion criteria comprised clinical studies (Levels I-III) reporting complications or reoperations after RP-ACLR. Pooled rates were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis where appropriate. Results: Across 34 studies ( Conclusion: RP-ACLR is a safe and clinically beneficial technique that demonstrates significantly lower rates of graft failure and comparable complication and reoperation rates versus standard ACLR. These findings support remnant preservation in appropriately selected patients to enhance graft survival. Level of Evidence: Level IV.
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.