ArticleOrthopedic reviews2026
Functional and Return-to-Sport Outcomes After Biologic Augmentation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Article in Orthopedic reviews, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The clinical value of biologic augmentation during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction remains uncertain, particularly regarding functional recovery and return to sport. Existing evidence has yielded inconsistent results, and prior syntheses have often emphasized radiologic outcomes rather than patient-centered functional measures. Methods: A systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of comparative clinical studies evaluating biologic augmentation during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was conducted. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched without date restrictions. Tegner activity score, Lysholm knee score, International Knee Documentation Committee score, and return-to-sport outcomes were analyzed when available. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and the MINORS criteria. Results: Ten studies were included. Biologic augmentation was associated with higher Tegner activity scores compared with standard reconstruction, with a pooled mean difference of 0.52 (95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.91) and no observed heterogeneity. Lysholm knee scores were also higher in the biologic augmentation group (mean difference 3.32, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 6.00), although substantial heterogeneity persisted across studies. No significant difference was observed in pooled International Knee Documentation Committee scores. Return-to-sport outcomes were reported inconsistently in only two studies and were not suitable for quantitative synthesis. Most randomized studies demonstrated some concerns regarding risk of bias, while non-randomized studies showed moderate methodological limitations. Conclusion: Biologic augmentation during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is associated with modest improvements in selected functional outcomes but does not result in consistent gains in global knee function or return-to-sport outcomes. Current evidence does not support routine use of biologic augmentation in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
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.