MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415619038 · doi:10.1002/ksa.70098

Effects of postoperative knee bracing on knee function and stability after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2025· review· en· W4415619038 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Qitai Lin, Zehao Li, Ming Li, Xueding Wang, Qian Li, Yongsheng Ma, Wenming Yang, Yugang Xing, Donglin Wang, Fan Yang, Wangping Duan, Xiaochun Wei

Bibliographic record

VenueKnee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of China
KeywordsAnterior cruciate ligamentOrthopedic surgeryBracingKnee JointAnterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesAnterior cruciate ligament reconstructionBiomechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The use of knee braces following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) remains contentious. Although frequently prescribed in clinical settings, their effectiveness in enhancing postoperative recovery is uncertain. This study aimed to determine whether postoperative bracing after ACLR confers clinical benefits regarding knee function scores, pain, muscle strength, and joint stability, through a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was conducted through March 2025 to identify randomized controlled trials and case-control studies evaluating postoperative bracing after ACLR. Meta-analyses were performed using Review Manager (version 5.3) for the following outcomes: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) objective score, Lysholm score, Tegner activity score, visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score, single-leg hop test, and side-to-side knee laxity. Bias risk evaluation was performed applying the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: A total of 785 participants across 11 studies were included, with 387 allocated to bracing and 388 to non-bracing groups. Meta-analysis revealed no significant differences between groups in IKDC objective score (odds ratio [OR] = 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-2.14; p = 0.58), Lysholm score (mean difference [MD] = -0.30; 95% CI, -0.72 to 0.11; p = 0.15), Tegner score (MD = -0.22; 95% CI, -0.46 to 0.02; p = 0.07), VAS pain score (MD = 0.08; 95% CI, -0.15 to 0.32; p = 0.49), single-leg hop test (MD = 1.06; 95% CI, -0.01 to 2.14; p = 0.05), and anterior-posterior knee laxity (MD = -0.30; 95% CI, -0.72 to 0.11; p = 0.15). Subgroup analyses indicated significantly better Lysholm and Tegner scores among individuals without bracing when follow-up exceeded 2 years. No consistent differences were observed by graft type. CONCLUSION: Postoperative bracing did not yield significant improvements in function, pain, strength, or stability following ACLR. Mid- to long-term outcomes (follow-up >2 years, up to 5 years) may favour non-bracing, indicating that routine brace use after ACLR is not warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, systematic review.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.032
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnee Surgery Sports Traumatology ArthroscopySame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207