ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2025
Long-term Clinical Outcomes After Single- Versus Double-Bundle ACL Reconstruction: A Matched-Pair Analysis From the SANTI Study Group.
Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) techniques have evolved toward more "anatomic" approaches, including the double-bundle (DB) method, which theoretically offers superior rotational control compared with single-bundle (SB) reconstruction. However, few studies have investigated comparative outcomes at mid- to long-term follow-up. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term clinical outcomes of SB and DB ACLR. It was hypothesized that both techniques would yield similar clinical results over an extended follow-up period. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Primary ACLR cases using either a DB or SB hamstring autograft technique registered in the Santy database from 2003 through 2008 were eligible. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for covariates such as age, sex, body mass index, meniscal status, and sports participation. Clinical evaluations-graft survival, side-to-side laxity measurements, and reoperation rates-were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model. Results: A total of 396 patients-198 in each group-were included, at a mean follow-up of 14.7 ± 0.6 years. In total, 40 patients (10.1%) experienced graft rupture, with no statistically significant difference between the 22 patients (11.1%) in the SB group and 18 patients (9.1%) in the DB group ( Conclusion: This study showed that over a mean follow-up of >14 years, the SB and DB ACLR techniques using hamstring autograft showed similar clinical results in terms of graft survival, reoperation rates, and stability. These results suggest that both techniques offer comparable efficacy in the long term.
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.