ArticleJournal of orthopaedic case reports2026
Comparing Bridge-Enhanced Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair to Standard Autograft for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Biomechanical and Clinical Outcomes.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic case reports, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Bridge-enhanced anterior cruciate ligament (BEAR) repair has emerged as a biologic alternative to conventional autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), aiming to preserve native ligament tissue while restoring knee stability. This paper compared the biomechanical and clinical outcomes of BEAR repair with standard autograft ACLR. Materials and Methods: A comparative observational study was conducted in the Department of Orthopedics. Patients with complete anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears who underwent either BEAR repair or standard autograft ACLR were included. Demographic characteristics, functional outcomes (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC], Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS], Lysholm, Tegner scores), knee stability, muscle strength recovery, return-to-sport, and post-operative complications were evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences version 27.0, and a P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Baseline demographic characteristics were comparable between the two groups (P > 0.05). Functional outcome scores, including IKDC, KOOS, Lysholm, and Tegner scores, showed no statistically significant differences between BEAR and autograft ACLR (P > 0.05). Knee stability parameters and magnetic resonance imaging healing rates were also comparable. However, patients undergoing BEAR repair demonstrated significantly greater quadriceps strength recovery (95.2 ± 5.3% vs. 92.6 ± 6.1%; P = 0.04), hamstring strength recovery (97.4 ± 4.2% vs. 86.8 ± 7.5%; P < 0.001), and earlier recovery of full muscle strength (8.3 ± 1.4 vs. 9.6 ± 1.8 months; P = 0.01). Return-to-sport rates and post-operative complication rates were similar between both groups. Conclusion: BEAR repair provides clinical and biomechanical outcomes comparable to standard autograft ACLR while offering significantly better post-operative muscle strength recovery. It represents an effective treatment option for appropriately selected patients with acute ACL injuries.
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.