Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42774985›Full record

ReviewCureus2026

Diagnosis, Treatment, and Current Controversies in Multiligament Knee Injuries: A Narrative Review.

Max A Saráchaga Mendoza

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Max A Saráchaga MendozaOrthopedic Surgery, Hospital General de México "Dr. Eduardo Liceaga", Mexico City, MEX.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multiligament knee injuries are infrequent but potentially severe, defined by the simultaneous rupture of two or more major knee ligaments, with a considerable risk of neurovascular injury. This narrative review, based on a search of PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar covering 2010 to 2026, examines their diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes, with emphasis on current controversies in surgical management. The Schenck classification remains the reference system, but its initial category is imprecise, and it does not reliably predict neurovascular injury; it should be interpreted alongside the full injury profile. Diagnosis requires a high index of suspicion and systematic physical examination; magnetic resonance imaging is the diagnostic standard, with a low threshold for computed tomography angiography when vascular injury is suspected. Surgery is the treatment of choice in active patients. Single-stage anatomic reconstruction of all injured structures within the first two to three weeks is associated with less secondary meniscal and chondral injury. Autograft is preferred for the anterior cruciate ligament in young patients, whereas autograft and allograft perform comparably for the posterior cruciate ligament and collateral complexes. Early mobilization is associated with less arthrofibrosis without compromising the grafts. Functional outcomes are acceptable in the short and medium term but deteriorate from seven years onward, with post-traumatic osteoarthritis in up to 71.7% of patients in some series. This should be discussed in preoperative counseling. Arthrofibrosis and residual instability are the most frequent complications, and neurovascular injury is the most severe. Surgical timing, graft selection, and the sequence of reconstruction remain the main open questions and will require comparative studies.

Indexed as

graft selectionknee arthrofibrosisknee dislocationligament reconstructionmultiligament knee injuryposterolateral cornerschenck classificationsurgical timing

Identifiers

PMID42774985
PMCPMC13596754

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.