ReviewKnee surgery & related research2026
What does a failure in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction really mean? An integrative view.
Review in Knee surgery & related research, 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 reconstruction (ACLR) is among the most frequently performed and successful procedures in orthopedic surgery. Nevertheless, a substantial proportion of patients experience postoperative "failure," a term that remains inconsistently defined throughout the literature. This narrative review critically analyzes the heterogeneity of definitions applied to ACLR failure, underscoring persistent gaps, contradictions, and their implications for clinical practice and research. We subsequently propose an integrative definition that aligns with both the clinical and functional objectives of reconstruction. Failure may result from multiple factors, including but not limited to technical, biological, traumatic, and patient-related, and inconsistencies arise when definitions rely exclusively on graft rupture, revision surgery, laxity thresholds, or isolated patient-reported symptoms. Although current consensus statements acknowledge this variability, they fail to provide operational definitions. Consequently, reported failure rates vary considerably, limiting comparability across studies. We advocate defining ACLR failure, as the presence of any of the following: objective or subjective post-operative instability, persistent knee pain, functional limitation including restricted range of motion, documented graft rupture, or new symptomatic meniscal injury in the absence of significant trauma. This multidimensional, patient-centered framework reflects the fundamental goals of ACLR and may serve as a foundation for standardized reporting criteria in future clinical and research endeavors.
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.