ReviewArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2026
Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Provides Superior Short-to-Midterm Rotational Stability But Not Clinically Important Functional Gains Over Single-Bundle: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the biomechanical and functional outcomes between single-bundle and double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques using the most current evidence, stratified by follow-up duration. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched from 2013 to September 2025 for randomized controlled trials comparing single-bundle versus DB anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. Primary outcomes included anterior tibial translation, rotational stability (pivot shift), and patient-reported outcomes (subjective International Knee Documentation Committee, Lysholm score). Secondary outcomes included return-to-sport and graft failure rate. Continuous outcomes were pooled using inverse-variance random-effects models (DerSimonian-Laird) and dichotomous outcomes using Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect models, with stratification by follow-up duration (24-48 months vs >48 months). Heterogeneity was assessed using the Results: Thirteen randomized controlled trials (1041 patients; 536 single-bundle, 505 DB; mean age 30.2 years; 68% men; follow-up 24-122 months) were included. At 24 to 48 months, DB reconstruction significantly reduced the risk of a positive pivot shift (risk ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.43-0.84, Conclusions: DB reconstruction shows statistically significant improvements in rotational stability and patient-reported functional scores at 24 to 48 months, but functional differences do not reach established minimal clinically important difference thresholds. No significant differences were observed beyond 48 months, a finding likely influenced by substantial study heterogeneity and graft selection. The current evidence does not support a universal clinical advantage for the DB technique; shared decision-making based on patient activity demands and surgeon experience remains essential. Level of Evidence: Level I, systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
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.