Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26069663›Full record

ArticleCartilage2013

Anatomic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Current Concepts and Future Perspective.

Christopher D Murawski, Megan R Wolf, Daisuke Araki, Bart Muller, Scott Tashman, Freddie H Fu

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Cartilage, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–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

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. No difference in return to play rates between different elite sports after primary autograft ACL reconstruction.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Current trends in the anterior cruciate ligament part 1: biology and biomechanics.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2022
    Review
  13. [Management algorithm for septic arthritis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. [Anatomical study of anterior cruciate ligament and its effect on reconstruction technique].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2018
    Review
  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.

Christopher D MurawskiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Megan R WolfDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Daisuke ArakiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA ; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Graduate school of Medicine, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan.
Bart MullerDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA ; Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
Scott TashmanDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Freddie H FuDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anatomic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is common procedure performed by orthopedic surgeons, particularly in association with sports-related injuries. Whereas traditional reconstruction techniques used a single bundle graft that was typically placed in a non-anatomic position, a renewed interest in anatomy has facilitated the popularization of anatomic reconstruction techniques. Recently, a focus has been placed on individualizing ACL surgery based on each patient's native anatomical characteristics (e.g., insertion site size, notch size, and shape), thereby dictating the ultimate procedure of choice. As subjective outcome measurements have demonstrated varying outcomes with respect to single- versus double-bundle ACL reconstruction, investigators have turned to more objective techniques, such as in vivo kinematics, as a means of evaluating joint motion and cartilage contact mechanics. Further investigation in this area may yield important information with regard to the potential progression to osteoarthritis after ACL reconstruction, including factors affecting or preventing it.

Indexed as

ACLanatomic ACL reconstructionanterior cruciate ligamentin vivo kinematics

Identifiers

PMID26069663
PMCPMC4297063

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.