Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42254953›Full record

ArticleVideo journal of sports medicine

Various Technique Modifications of BEAR ACL Restoration.

Samuel G Lorentz, Zachary S Aman, Brian C Lau, Jocelyn R Wittstein, Jacqueline M Brady

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Video journal of sports medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Samuel G LorentzDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1058-1796
Zachary S AmanDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7035-5323
Brian C LauDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Jocelyn R WittsteinDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Jacqueline M BradyDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3357-7183

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries are incredibly common, with an annual incidence of 68.6 per 100,000. The Bridge-Enhanced ACL Restoration (BEAR) is a relatively novel technique that combines suture repair of the ligament and a bioactive scaffold implant to bridge the gap between the torn ligament ends. Since the adoption of the BEAR technique, several modifications have been made to the original technique. These modifications are being prospectively studied within the Bridge registry. Indications: ACL tears amenable to repair. Technique Description: The described technique demonstrates 2 common modifications to the original BEAR technique. The first technique passes 2 luggage tag-style sutures onto the ACL stump. These are then passed into a tensionable suture loop and button assembly. This is passed through a femoral tunnel, securing the ACL stump to the femoral footprint. Bridging sutures are attached to the button, passed through the BEAR Implant, and brought through a tibial tunnel. The second demonstrated technique again passes 2 luggage tag style sutures through the ACL stump and secures them to the femoral footprint using a knotless anchor. Bridging sutures are passed through the BEAR Implant, out a tibia tunnel, and fixed to the tibia with another knotless anchor. In both techniques, the preparation of the BEAR Implant is the same and is completed without arthroscopic visualization. Results: In our experience, patients undergoing BEAR with real-world technique modifications have achieved successful outcomes. The Bridge registry has prospectively followed these patients and has published their early results. With the first 100 patients, they showed an ACL retear rate of 5% at 2 years. Furthermore, there has been a low rate of adverse events, and 61% of patients have been able to return to sport at 9 months. Discussion/Conclusion: Several technical modifications have been developed for the use of the BEAR Implant in ACL repair. These approaches demonstrate promising early outcomes and enable surgeons to tailor the procedure according to their preferences and level of expertise. Patient Consent Disclosure Statement: The author(s) attests that consent has been obtained from any patient(s) appearing in this publication. If the individual may be identifiable, the author(s) has included a statement of release or other written form of approval from the patient(s) with this submission for publication.

Indexed as

anterior cruciate ligamentanterior cruciate ligament outcomesanterior cruciate ligament repairanterior cruciate ligament ruptureBridge-Enhanced Anterior Cruciate Ligament Restoration

Identifiers

PMID42254953
PMCPMC13237450

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.