Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23242378›Full record

Trial reportKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2014

The effect of remnant preservation on tibial tunnel enlargement in ACL reconstruction with hamstring autograft: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

Qiang Zhang, Shu Zhang, Xuecheng Cao, Lifeng Liu, Ya Liu, Rui Li

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Clinical outcomes of remnant preserving augmentation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2014
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Remnant preservation provides good clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2021
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Qiang ZhangDepartment of Orthapaedic Surgery, The General Hospital of the Jinan Military Command, No. 25, Shifan Road, Jinan, Shandong, China.
Shu Zhang
Xuecheng Cao
Lifeng Liu
Ya Liu
Rui Li

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo investigate the effect of remnant preservation on tibial tunnel enlargement in a single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with a hamstring autograft.

methodsFrom 2006 to 2009, a total of 62 patients who underwent single-bundle ACL reconstruction with a quadrupled hamstring tendon autograft were enrolled in this study. The patients were randomly divided into two groups: the preserving-remnant group and the removing-remnant group. Plain radiographs were taken at 1 week, and 3, 6, and 24 months postoperatively, and tibial tunnel enlargement was evaluated. The postoperative clinical assessment included the Lysholm rating scale and KT-1000 measurement.

resultsIn total, 27 patients in the preserving-remnant group and 24 patients in the removing-remnant group were followed up and the median follow-up was 24.5 months (range 24-27 months). Tibial tunnel enlargement occurred within 6 months postoperatively. Positive enlargement was observed in 8 patients (29.6 %) in the preserving-remnant group and 14 patients (58.3 %) in the removing-remnant group (P = 0.0388). The percentage of tibial tunnel enlargement was 25.7 ± 6.7 and 34.0 ± 8.9 % in the preserving- and removing-remnant groups, respectively (P = 0.0004). In the preserving-remnant group, the average Lysholm score increased from 60.3 ± 5.3 (51-69) to 93.0 ± 3.5 (88-100), and the side-to-side difference of the KT-1000 changed from 6.3 ± 0.9 (5.1-8.0) to 1.4 ± 0.6 (0.5-2.4) mm. In the removing-remnant group, the average Lysholm score increased from 58.7 ± 6.5 (48-71) to 91.1 ± 3.9 (85-100), and the side-to-side difference of the KT-1000 changed from 6.5 ± 0.8 (5.4-8.2) to 1.7 ± 0.6 (0.6-2.8) mm.

conclusionsIt is confirmed that remnant preservation in ACL reconstruction can resist tibial tunnel enlargement but that this technique does not affect the short-term clinical outcome of ACL reconstruction.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAnterior Cruciate LigamentAnterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesAnterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionAutograftsFemaleHumansKnee InjuriesMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative PeriodProspective StudiesTendonsTibiaTransplantation, Autologous

Identifiers

PMID23242378

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.