ReviewArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2026
Anteromedial Femoral Tunnel Placement Reduces Graft Failure Risk Without Affecting Rotational Stability in Anatomic Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.
Review in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare clinical outcomes and graft failure between anatomical femoral tunnel (FT) placement at the central and anteromedial bundle (AMB) positions. Methods: A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A search of PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science in November 2024 identified studies comparing AMB and central FT placement in anatomical single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. The risk of bias was assessed using the Risk Of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool. A qualitative synthesis was performed and presented graphically. Results: Six studies with 841 patients (444 AMB FT, 397 central FT) were included. Weighted mean follow-up was 34.8 and 40.7 months for the AMB and central groups, respectively. Overall risk of bias was serious in 4 studies and moderate in 2. AMB FT placement was associated with a significantly lower risk of graft failure (74%-77% reduction) in 2 studies. However, concerns in risk of bias and consistency decreased the certainty in this finding. Evidence for patient-reported outcomes and anterior stability was mixed and of uncertain clinical importance. Although some studies reported statistically significant benefits for AMB FT placement (differences of <7 points for patient-reported outcomes and <1 mm for anterior stability), others found no significant difference. Rotational laxity showed a nonsignificant difference between groups in all studies. Conclusions: The current evidence is limited by methodological flaws and risk of bias. It suggests that AM FT placement might be associated with a lower risk of graft failure compared with central placement. The AM position might achieve better patient-reported outcomes and anterior stability, although the difference is not clinically significant. No evidence of a difference was found regarding rotational stability. Level of Evidence: Level III, systematic review of Level II and III studies.
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.