ArticleAsia-Pacific journal of sports medicine, arthroscopy, rehabilitation and technology2026
APKASS 2024 consensus statement on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, Part II: Management of anterior cruciate ligament revision in adults.
Article in Asia-Pacific journal of sports medicine, arthroscopy, rehabilitation and technology, 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
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a complex procedure with varying diagnostic, surgical, and rehabilitation approaches. This study aimed to develop a consensus among surgeons from APKASS on key aspects of revision ACLR to improve clinical outcomes. Methods: A total of 23 expert surgeons from eight member countries participated in the survey. Topics included diagnostics, surgical indications, techniques, graft selection, rehabilitation protocols, and return-to-play (RTP) considerations for revision ACLR. Responses were analyzed in comparison with the current literature to identify areas of agreement and divergence. Results: A consensus was reached on the importance of clinical and imaging criteria, including the pivot shift test, KT-2000 measurements, and MRI for identifying ACL failure. CT was preferred for evaluating tunnel placement. Poor tunnel placement was identified as the leading cause of ACL failure. One-stage revision surgeries were favoured unless significant tunnel enlargement required a two-stage approach. Bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) autografts were the preferred graft choice, while quadriceps tendon (QT) autografts emerged as a viable alternative. Revision ACLR was deemed critical for active patients engaged in high-impact sports, while older age and established osteoarthritis were considered relative contraindications. Additional procedures, such as lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET), were selectively indicated based on individual patient factors. Conservative, patient-specific rehabilitation protocols were recommended, with an emphasis on addressing psychological factors. RTP rates varied widely, highlighting the importance of tailored recovery plans to optimize outcomes. Conclusion: This consensus emphasizes the importance of individualized and evidence-based approaches in revision ACLR, from diagnostics and surgical techniques to rehabilitation and RTP. Standardized criteria and further research are essential to refine strategies and improve outcomes in this patient population. Level of evidence: V (Expert opinion).
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.