ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2026
ACL reconstruction in football players: A nationwide Swedish registry study of anteromedial versus transtibial femoral tunnel techniques.
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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare anteromedial (AM) portal versus transtibial (TT) femoral drilling techniques in football players undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), focusing on return-to-competition (RTC), match exposure, patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) and reinjury risk. Methods: This nationwide cohort study linked the Swedish Knee Ligament Registry with the Swedish Football Association to capture surgical details, verified football participation, and longitudinal PROMs. All index ACLRs in registered football players from 2017-2023 were included. Outcomes were RTC, match exposure, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and EuroQol 5 dimension score scores at pre-op, 1, 2 and 5 years, and revision, contralateral, or any second ACL reconstruction. Analyses used t-tests and Results: A total of 7169 football players were included (AM 6,653; TT 516). Group differences at baseline were small but present (e.g., more women and left-sided injuries in TT; more meniscal repair and cartilage injury in AM). RTC rates were similar (55.2% AM vs. 56.8% TT), as were time to RTC, total matches played, matches after RTC, seasons played, and competitive level before and after injury. PROMs showed modest 1-year differences favouring AM that were not observed at 2 years. No differences were observed at 5 years, although based on limited TT data. Reinjury rates were comparable (revision 6.7% AM vs. 7.4% TT; contralateral 4.6% vs. 4.8%; any second ACLR 11.0% vs. 11.8%). Adjusted Cox models showed no association between portal technique and revision (hazard ratio [HR] 0.878, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-1.23) or any second ACLR (HR 0.906, 95% CI 0.70-1.18), with similar findings in RTC-only analyses. Conclusion: In a nationwide cohort of football players, AM and TT femoral drilling techniques yielded similar real-world outcomes: comparable reinjury risk, RTC rates and timing, match exposure, competitive trajectory, and PROMs. For football players undergoing primary ACL reconstruction, both AM and TT techniques are acceptable options. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study.
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.