ArticleScientific reports2024
Graft choice to decrease the revision rate of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a nationwide retrospective cohort study.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Medium-term functional outcomes comparing soft-tissue autografts with allografts in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction : a systematic review and meta-analysis.Bone & joint open · 2026Pooled it
- Sport-Specific Considerations in ACL Reconstruction: Diagnostic Evaluation and Graft Selection.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The Role of Allografts in Revision ACL Reconstruction.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Observational
- Double-Bundle Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Superficial Quadriceps and Semitendinosus Tendon Autografts.Arthroscopy techniques · 2025Article
- The Risk of Secondary Knee Procedures After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction-A Nationwide Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Early clinical outcomes of all-inside arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with autograft tendon augmentation using the LARS internal brace ligament.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
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
There are many graft choices for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, including autografts and allografts. The choice of graft has been identified as a significant factor affecting the outcome of ACL reconstruction. This study aimed to determine whether allograft or autograft is better for avoiding revisional ACL reconstruction. The National Health Insurance Service-Health screening database analyzed 146,122 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction surgery from Jan. 1, 2002, to Dec. 31, 2021. The study was conducted in two groups, autograft or allograft, and the rates of revision ACL reconstruction between the two groups were compared. Propensity score matching and multivariable Cox Proportional Hazard model analysis were used. The significant predictors for complications (p < 0.05) were as follows. The total of patients with ACL reconstruction was 146,122. Allograft was used in 121,148 patients, and autograft was used in 24,974 patients. 9.2% of the allograft group and 8.7% of the autograft group underwent revision ACL reconstruction. (P < .0001) 70.0% & 63.6% of patients underwent revision surgery within 1 year in the allograft & autograft groups, respectively. In summary, using autograft in primary ACL reconstruction is helpful in lowering the rate of revision surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.