Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23377797›Full record

ReviewKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2013

Augmentation or reconstruction of PCL? A quantitative review.

Angelo Del Buono, Juri Radmilovic, Giuseppe Gargano, Salvatore Gatto, Nicola Maffulli

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Angelo Del BuonoDepartment of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Campus Biomedico University of Rome, Via Alvaro del Portillo, Rome, Italy. a.delbuono@unicampus.it
Juri Radmilovic
Giuseppe Gargano
Salvatore Gatto
Nicola Maffulli
University of Salerno · ITMile End Hospital · GBUniversità Campus Bio-Medico · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this quantitative review is to document effectiveness and complications of posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) surgery and compare outcomes, advantages and disadvantages of reconstructive and augmentation procedures.

methodsA systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Medline, Ovid, Google Scholar and Embase databases using the combined keywords "PCL reconstruction," "PCL augmentation," "clinical outcomes" and "functional outcomes" with no limit for year of publication. Articles were included if they reported data on clinical, functional and imaging outcomes who had undergone reconstruction or augmentation of the PCL for management of PCL injuries. Two authors screened the selected articles for title, abstract and full text in accordance with predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The methodological quality of all articles was assessed by two authors according to the Coleman methodology score. The critical appraisal was made using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale.

resultsA total of 34 studies, 22 retrospective, 9 prospective and 5 were randomized control trials were included by full text. The modified Coleman methodology score averaged 70.8 (SD 6.5), median 73 (range from 60 to 82). At IKDC assessment, the average rate of normal (A) and nearly normal (B) outcomes was 89.8% (SD 4.2) (from 85 to 93%; median 91.4) after PCL augmentation and 80.1% (SD 12.4) after PCL reconstruction (from 57.2 to 100%; median 81.8 %) were rated as normal (A) and nearly normal (B). The average Lysholm Knee Scores after PCL augmentation were 93.1 points (SD 1.9) and ranged from 82.1 to 94.2 (median 90.5) after PCL reconstruction. The KT 1000 difference improved from an average preoperative difference of 8.8 mm (SD 0.9) to an average postoperative of 2.1 mm (SD 0.6) after PCL augmentation (average improvement of 6.7 mm (SD 4.7)) and from 8.2 (SD 3.6) to 2.3 mm (SD 2.0) (average improvement of 5.9 mm SD 4.2) after PCL reconstruction. Postoperatively, the Telos stress radiographic side to side difference averagely improved by 8.6 mm (SD 6.1) after PCL augmentation, from 11.1 mm (SD 1.4) to 2.5 mm (SD 0.4), and by 8.0 mm (SD 5.7) after PCL reconstruction, from 11.5 mm (SD 2.2) to 3.5 mm (SD 1.3).

conclusionsAugmentation and reconstruction procedures are grossly equivalent, but more data examining the long-term functional status, recovery to preinjury daily and sport activities and occurrence of degenerative changes are needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Indexed as

AdultHumansKnee InjuriesKnee JointPlastic Surgery ProceduresPosterior Cruciate LigamentTendonsTransplantation, Autologous

Identifiers

PMID23377797
OpenAlexW2013190069

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.