The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Metaanalysis Comparing Patellar Tendon and Hamstring Tendon Autografts
Abstract
Background: The best choice of graft tissue for use in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction has been the subject of debate. Hypothesis: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with patellar tendon autograft leads to greater knee stability than reconstruction with hamstring tendon autograft. Study Design: Metaanalysis. Methods: A Medline search identified articles published from January 1966 to May 2000 describing arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with either patellar tendon or hamstring tendon autograft and with a minimum patient follow-up of 24 months. Results: There were 1348 patients in the patellar tendon group (21 studies) and 628 patients in the hamstring tendon group (13 studies). The rate of graft failure in the patellar tendon group was significantly lower (1.9% versus 4.9%) and a significantly higher proportion of patients in the patellar tendon group had a side-to-side difference of less than 3 mm on KT-1000 arthrometer testing than in the hamstring tendon group (79% versus 73.8%). There was a higher rate of manipulation under anesthesia or lysis of adhesions (6.3% versus 3.3%) and of anterior knee pain in the patellar tendon group (17.4% versus 11.5%) and a higher incidence of hardware removal in the hamstring tendon group (5.5% versus 3.1%). Conclusions: Patellar tendon autografts had a significantly lower rate of graft failure and resulted in better static knee stability and increased patient satisfaction compared with hamstring tendon autografts. However, patellar tendon autograft reconstructions resulted in an increased rate of anterior knee pain.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Cited by
Descriptive Epidemiology of the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) Cohort
The MARS Group, Wright, R. W., Huston, L. J., Spindler, K. P., Dunn, W. R., Haas, A. K., Allen, C. R., Cooper, D. E., DeBerardino, T. M., Lantz, B. (. A., et al. (2010) · The American Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1177/0363546510378645 · Cited by 470
Zantop, T., Wellmann, M., Fu, F. H., & Petersen, W. (2008) · The American Journal of Sports Medicine · doi:10.1177/0363546507308361 · Cited by 344
Amis, A. A. (2012) · Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy · doi:10.1007/s00167-011-1864-7 · Cited by 143
Slobogean, G. P., Verma, A., Giustini, D., Slobogean, B. L., & Mulpuri, K. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.01.013 · Cited by 62
DeFrate, L. E. (2017) · Journal of Orthopaedic Research · doi:10.1002/jor.23541 · Cited by 27
Metadata
- Authors
- Freedman, K. B., D'Amato, M. J., Nedeff, D. D., Kaz, A., & Bach, B. R.
- Venue
- The American Journal of Sports Medicine
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2003-01
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 2-11
- ISSN
- 0363-5465 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3365
- OpenAlex
- W2115250707
- Cited by
- 806
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 27.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Metaanalysis Comparing Patellar Tendon and Hamstring Tendon Autografts. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/03635465030310011501
- The paper
- Freedman, K. B., D'Amato, M. J., Nedeff, D. D., Kaz, A., & Bach, B. R. (2003). Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Metaanalysis Comparing Patellar Tendon and Hamstring Tendon Autografts. The American Journal of Sports Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465030310011501
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.