ArticleKnee surgery & related research2015
Anatomic Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using an Outside-in Technique: Two- to Six-Year Clinical and Radiological Follow-up.
Article in Knee surgery & related research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prevalence of patellofemoral joint osteoarthritis after anterior cruciate ligament injury and associated risk factors: A systematic review.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2020Review
- The Results of Single Bundle Versus Double Bundle ACL Reconstruction Surgery, a Retrospective Study and Review of Literature.Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina) · 2016Review
- A Comparison between Clinical Results of Selective Bundle and Double Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.Yonsei medical journal · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe evaluated the clinical and radiological outcomes of double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using an outside-in technique with a follow-up of two- to six-years, especially in terms of the sports activity level and radiological degeneration. MATERIALS AND
methodsSixty-seven patients who were available for a minimum two-year follow-up after double-bundle ACL reconstruction using an outside-in technique were retrospectively evaluated. The mean follow-up period was 43.7 months. The knee function and stability were evaluated before the operation, one year after the operation (short-term follow-up), and more than two years after the operation (last follow-up).
resultsRegarding the knee function, the Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) evaluation, and hop test showed significant improvement. Regarding the stability, the Lachman test, pivot shift test, KT-2000 arthrometer data, and anterior drawer radiographs using Telos showed significant improvement. Regarding the sports activity level, the patients who returned to pre-injury level activity was 68.7% according to the Tegner activity score and 76.1% according to the Cincinnati sports activity scale score. The incidence of aggravated degeneration or development of greater than IKDC grade A degeneration after surgery was 10.4%.
conclusionsDouble-bundle ACL reconstruction using an outside-in technique showed favorable clinical and radiological outcomes with respect to the knee function and stability, joint degeneraion, and, especially, return to pre-injury sports activity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.