Skip to main content

Table 2 Demographic data and mean follow-up per clinical study

From: A Narrative Review of Four Different New Techniques in Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair: “Back to the Future” or Another Trend?

Study

Technique

Number of patients

Sex

Mean age (years)

Follow-up

(months)

Bieri et al. [31]

DIS

53-DIS

53 Conventional reconstruction

43M:10F

Per group

30 (1st group)

31 (2nd group)

24

Büchler et al. [38]

DIS

45

32M-13F

26

12

Eggli et al. [39]

DIS

10

8M-2F

23.3

60

Evangelopoulos et al. [40]

DIS

23 With collagen application, 33 without collagen application

15M-8F (1st group)

24M-9F (2nd group)

30 (1st group)

27 (2nd group)

24

Kösters et al. [41]

DIS

55

31M-24F

30.4

12

Henle et al. [20]

DIS

278

163M-115F

31

24

Murray et al. [32]

BEAR

20 (2 groups of 10)

4M-6F (BEAR)

2M-8F (Control)

24.1 (BEAR)

24.6 (Control)

3

Smith et al. [33]

Internal brace

3

1M-2F

6

12

21

24

Achtnich et al. [34]

Anchors primary ACL repair

21 (Anchors primary ACL repair)-20 (control)

No significant difference between sexes

30 (Anchors primary ACL repair)

33.6 (Control)

28

DiFelice et al. [42]

Anchors primary ACL repair

11

10M-1F

37

42

  1. DIS dynamic intraligamentary stabilization, BEAR bridge-enhanced ACL repair, M males, F females, ACL anterior cruciate ligament