Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25269758›Full record

SynthesisMusculoskeletal surgery2014

Fixation techniques for the anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: early follow-up. A systematic review of level I and II therapeutic studies.

Andrea Speziali, Marco Delcogliano, Matteo Tei, Giacomo Placella, Matteo Bartoli, Amerigo Menghi, Giuliano Cerulli

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Musculoskeletal surgery, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Does an accessory tibial fixation has any impact on tunnel diameter or functional outcome in conventional ACL reconstruction?European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Outcome measures in clinical ACL studies: an analysis of highly cited level I trials.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2017
    Review
  15. Article
  16. 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

7 authors.

Andrea SpezialiInstitute of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Catholic University, 'Agostino Gemelli' Hospital, Rome, Italy, andrea.speziali@gmail.com.
Marco Delcogliano
Matteo Tei
Giacomo Placella
Matteo Bartoli
Amerigo Menghi
Giuliano Cerulli

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of our study was that to systematically review the fixation techniques for the ACL reconstruction and associated clinical outcomes at the early follow-up. Systematic search on three electronic databases (Cochrane register, Medline and Embase) of fixation devices used for primary ACL reconstruction with doubled semitendinosus and gracilis and bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts in randomized clinical trials of level I and II of evidence published from January 2001 to December 2011. Therapeutic studies collected were with a minimum 12-month follow-up, and the clinical outcomes were evaluated by at least one of International Knee Documentation Committee, Lysholm and Tegner functional scales and at least one of the following knee stability tests: arthrometric AP tibial translation, Lachman test and pivot-shift test. Nineteen articles met the inclusion criteria. At the femoral side cross-pin, metallic interference screw, bioabsorbable interference screw, and suspensory device were used in 32.3, 27.3, 24.8, 15.5% of patients, respectively. At the tibial side fixation was achieved with metallic interference screw, bioabsorbable interference screw, screw and plastic sheath, screw post and cross-pin in 38.7, 31, 15.7, 12.8, and 1.7% of patients, respectively. Side-to-side anterior-posterior tibial translation was 1.9 ± 0.9, 1.5 ± 0.9, 1.5 ± 0.8, 2.2 ± 0.4 mm for metallic interference screw, bioabsorbable screw, cross-pin and suspensory device, respectively. At least two-third of all the patients achieved good-to-excellent clinical outcomes. Rate of failure was 6.1, 3.3, 1.7 and 1.2% for bioabsorbable interference screw, metallic interference screw, cross-pin and suspensory device, respectively. Clinical outcomes are good to excellent in almost two-third of the patients but several pitfalls that affect the current fixation techniques as graft tensioning such as graft-tunnel motion are still unaddressed.

Indexed as

Anterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

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.