ReviewJournal of orthopaedic case reports2026
Bridge-Enhanced Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair versus Autograft Reconstruction in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Surgery.
Review 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: Surgical repair of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) using an autograft is the accepted standard treatment for symptomatic ACL tears, but morbidity associated with the harvest of the autograft, residual laxity, and the possibility of a second injury and post-traumatic osteoarthritis have brought about renewed interest in biologic repair. Bridge-enhanced ACL repair (BEAR) employs an extracellular matrix, resorbable implant, and autologous blood to promote healing of the native ligament. Materials and Methods: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases were queried for English-language papers from January 2019 until June 2026, with a selection of landmark papers in translation retained. The highest priority evidence included randomized trials, prospective cohort studies, registries, systematic reviews, consensus statements, and mechanistic animal studies. The narrative synthesis was conducted in line with the SANRA principles. Results: BEAR is supported by a prospective randomized trial demonstrating noninferior 2-year score and instrumented anteroposterior laxity versus autograft reconstruction, and higher hamstring strength with a higher number of ipsilateral second ACL surgeries (numerically) in BEAR. There are small or short-term early registry results and 6-year first-in-human data that are encouraging. Autograft reconstruction is versatile in all patterns, chronic injuries, revision scenarios, and high-risk athletes. Bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft may have a lower revision risk for young pivoting athletes. At the same time, hamstring harvest may result in lower strength, and a smaller autograft may result in a higher failure risk. Conclusion: BEAR should be used as a selective repair option for patients with acute and repairable ACL tears, and good tibial stump and tissue quality. The indication is unclear, chronicity is long, the risk of instability is high, or revision predictability is high, and the autograft reconstruction is preferred.
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.