ArticleCureus2026
Internal Brace Augmentation Versus Standard Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Comparative Clinical Study in Young Active Patients.
Article 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsAnterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture is a common injury in young, active individuals, and arthroscopic ACL reconstruction (ACLR) is the standard of care. Internal brace augmentation has been proposed to enhance graft protection and potentially facilitate earlier return to sport, but comparative clinical data remain limited. This study aimed to compare early functional outcomes, knee stability, return to sports, and complications between internal brace augmentation ACLR and standard ACLR in patients with ACL rupture.
methodsThis prospective comparative study was conducted at Medical College Kolkata, a tertiary care teaching hospital in Kolkata, India. Seventy patients with unilateral ACL rupture were analyzed: Group A (internal brace augmentation ACLR, n = 40) and Group B (standard ACLR, n = 30). Baseline demographics and injury characteristics were recorded. Functional outcomes (International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm scores) were assessed preoperatively and at six months. Knee range of motion (ROM), clinical stability tests (anterior drawer, Lachman, and pivot shift), time to return to sports, and postoperative complications were also evaluated. Between-group comparisons used Mann-Whitney U and chi-square or Fisher's exact tests, with p < 0.05 considered significant.
resultBaseline characteristics, including age (27.00 ± 5.60 vs. 26.53 ± 3.07 years; p = 0.638), sex, side, and mechanism of injury, were comparable between groups. Preoperative IKDC scores were similar (49.48 ± 3.19 vs. 49.83 ± 3.19; p = 0.659), improving at six months to 78.98 ± 4.54 in Group A and 77.83 ± 6.72 in Group B (p = 0.858). Preoperative Lysholm scores (54.28 ± 3.29 vs. 54.57 ± 3.07; p = 0.672) improved to 88.88 ± 4.31 and 87.60 ± 6.58, respectively (p = 0.761). At six months, most patients achieved ROM 0-130° or 0-140° (39 (97.5%) Group A, 27 (90.0%) Group B; p = 0.288), and all had negative anterior drawer and Lachman tests; pivot shift was Grade 0 in 30 (75.0%) vs. 20 (66.7%) and Grade 1 in 10 (25.0%) vs. 10 (33.3%) (p = 0.445). Internal brace patients returned to sports significantly earlier (6.38 ± 0.98 vs. 8.20 ± 0.61 months; p < 0.001). Complications were low and comparable: knee stiffness 1 (2.5%) vs. 3 (10.0%) and effusion 3 (7.5%) vs. 2 (6.7%).
conclusionInternal brace augmentation ACLR provides early functional outcomes, knee stability, and complication rates comparable to standard ACLR, with the added benefit of a significantly earlier return to sports. These findings support internal brace augmentation as a safe and effective option for young, active ACL rupture patients, while longer-term studies are warranted.
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.