Table 1

Articles included in the final review

AuthorsYearStudy group characteristicsPatients (male)Mean age, yearsMean follow-up time, yearsPercentage with non-contact injuryPatients with GJH, n (%)Evaluation method
Akhtar et al332015Primary ACL injury139 (100)28NANI52 (37)*BS
ACL revision44 (29)28NANI25 (57)*
Controls70 (57)33NANA11 (16)*
et al34
1987Unilateral ACL injury17 (10)23NANINIBS
Bilateral ACL injury14 (8)26NINI
Controls17 (10)27NANI
Astur et al422018ACL injury107 (82)32.9 SD ±11.90.5NI17 (15.9)BS
ACL and meniscus injury75 (60)0.517 (36.2)
Meniscus injury60 (54)0.2511 (25.6)
Harner et al291994Bilateral ACL injury31 (22)29NA100NIModified and Horan method
Controls23 (13)29NANANI
Kim et al432009Single-bundle PT graft32 (14)292‡NIAll patientsBeighton and Horan
Double-bundle QT graft29 (11)252‡All patients
Kim et al (only subgroup with GJH presented)442008Single-bundle PT graft20 (7)282‡NIAll patientsBeighton and Horan
Single-bundle HT graft11 (3)302‡All patients
Kim et al302009Single-bundle PT graft or
Single-bundle HT graft
272 (175)292‡NINABeighton and Horan
Kim et al412018Non-hypermobile with PT graft122 (97)§29.9±10.62‡NINoneBS
Non-hypermobile with HT graft53 (42)§31.1±10.62‡None
Hypermobile with PT graft41 (29)§29.4±10.52‡All
Hypermobile with HT graft21 (15)§28.5±8.02‡All
Kim et al62018Hypermobile ACL reconstructed27 (19)29.5±10.28‡NI33BS
Non-hypermobile ACL reconstructed81 (63)28.7±10.48‡67
Kramer et al312007ACL injury33 (0)21NANINIBS
Controls33 (0)19NANANI
Larson et al52017Hypermobile ACL reconstructed41 (9)235.7NI41BS
Non-hypermobile ACL reconstructed142 (72)286.20
Motohashi402004Unilateral ACL injury161 (54)19.8 (range 12–45)3.3 (range 1.1–7.4)NINAMethod according to Fukubayashi et al
Bilateral ACL injury10 (0)18.2 (range 13–24)90%NA
Controls95 (0)15.6 SD ±1.4NANANA
et al35
2005ACL injury169 (137)Range 18–34NA75.4%72 (42.6)BS
Controls65 (NI)NI, age and gender matchedNANA14 (21.5)
et al38
2005ACL injury36 (14)Males: 22.7 SD ±3.4
Females: 21.5 SD ±2.5
NA100NABS and a modified version
Controls181 (89)Males: 20.1 SD ±1.4
Females: 19.5 SD ±1.2
Shimozaki et al72018ACL injury12 (0)15.4 SD ±0.3312NA**BS
Controls156 (0)15.5 SD ±0.33NANA**
Stijak et al372014ACL injury29 (29)26.6NA100NIBS
Controls29 (29)27.1NANANI
Stijak et al392014ACL injury12 (0)24.2NA100NIBS
Controls12 (0)24.8NANANI
et al4
2003ACL injury24 (16)18.4 (range 17–23)4 (both groups)100NABS
Uninjured controls835 (723)NANA
Vacek et al322016ACL injury109 (36)NINA100NIBS
Vaishya and Hasija362013ACL injury group210 (135)24.6±0.9NANI127 (60.5)BS
Controls90 (55)NI. Matched for age and genderNANA23 (25.5)
  • *Using the >4 cut-off limit.

  • †With modifications.

  • ‡The exact follow-up time was not disclosed.

  • §The presented patients were followed up for 2 years, fewer patients were examined at the 5-year follow-up.

  • ¶Only the patients in the 8-year follow-up were included, as the same patients from the 2-year and 5-year follow-ups appear to be presented in the following article by Kim et al.

  • **Patients not dichotomised into hypermobile/non-hypermobile.

  • BS, Beighton Score; GJH, generalised joint hypermobility; HT, hamstring tendon; NA, not applicable; NI, no information; PT, patellar tendon; QT, quadriceps tendon.