ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2026
Does combined ACL primary augmentation with autograft reconstruction reduces risk of failure at 3-years follow-up compared to ACL reconstruction?
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Re-rupture after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair is frequent, raising the question of graft integration failure. However, the introduction of new materials and techniques has brought ACL repair back into fashion, especially ACL augmentation using the hamstrings. Purpose To evaluate ACL augmentation, using a hamstring graft, complete remnant conservation and its fixation to the femur, and to compare it with "conventional" ACL reconstruction with a semi-tendinosus graft without anterolateral ligament reconstruction. The re-rupture rate, re-intervention rate, intraoperative data (tunnel size, meniscal lesions, tourniquet time), and post-operative subjective scores (SKV, IKDC, ACL-RSI) at 3 years follow-up were compared for the two techniques. Methods: ACL augmentation was performed in 60 consecutive patients, 47 of whom were evaluated (ACL-A group) (seven excluded for re-rupture and six lost to follow-up). This group was compared with a control group of 63 patients who had undergone "conventional" ACL reconstruction (ACL-R group) with a semi-tendinosus graft without anterolateral ligament reconstruction (three patients were excluded due to re-rupture). Both groups were comparable for sex, age, body mass index, surgical delay, tunnel size and meniscal lesion rate. Results: There was no significant difference between the two groups for clinical outcomes at 3 years follow-up: median scores for ACL-RSI (ACL-A: 75 vs. ACL-R: 72; Conclusion: ACL augmentation did not improve clinical results, complication rates, or graft failure rate at 3 years post-surgery, despite a longer surgery time and more challenging technique. Level of Evidence: Level II.
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.