Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27120190›Full record

Trial reportKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2017

Resorbable screw and sheath versus resorbable interference screw and staples for ACL reconstruction: a comparison of two tibial fixation methods.

Christian Carulli, Fabrizio Matassi, Stefano Soderi, Luigi Sirleo, Giovanni Munz, Massimo Innocenti

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. [Research progress of tibial-graft fixation methods on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Partial rupture of anterior cruciate ligament: preliminary experience of selective reconstruction.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2020
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Post-operative 3D CT feedback improves accuracy and precision in the learning curve of anatomic ACL femoral tunnel placement.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2018
    Article
  19. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Christian CarulliOrthopaedic Clinic, University of Florence, Largo P. Palagi 1, 50139, Florence, Italy. christian.carulli@unifi.it.
Fabrizio MatassiOrthopaedic Clinic, University of Florence, Largo P. Palagi 1, 50139, Florence, Italy.
Stefano SoderiOrthopaedic Clinic, University of Florence, Largo P. Palagi 1, 50139, Florence, Italy.
Luigi SirleoOrthopaedic Clinic, University of Florence, Largo P. Palagi 1, 50139, Florence, Italy.
Giovanni MunzOrthopaedic Clinic, University of Florence, Largo P. Palagi 1, 50139, Florence, Italy.
Massimo InnocentiOrthopaedic Clinic, University of Florence, Largo P. Palagi 1, 50139, Florence, Italy.
University of Florence · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is one of the most performed and successful orthopaedic procedures. The results are considered independent by the choice of the graft and the fixation devices. A growing interest on resorbable non-metallic fixation devices versus standard metallic fixation devices has been noted over recent years with few clinical experiences reported in the literature. The aim of this study is to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of patients undergoing ACL reconstruction using autologous hamstring tendons with tibial fixation by a centrally placed resorbable screw and sheath to a combination of an eccentrically placed resorbable interference screw and supplementary staple fixation.

methodsNinety patients undergoing an isolated, single-bundle, primary ACL reconstruction with autologous hamstring tendons, using the same femoral fixation, were randomized to a tibial fixation with a centrally placed resorbable screw and sheath, BioIntrafix (group A), or an eccentrically placed resorbable interference screw, BioRCI, and two non-resorbable staples (group B). The latter has represented for many years our standard fixation method. Clinical evaluations (KOOS, IKDC, KT-2000™ side-to-side difference) and radiological analyses were conducted in both groups with a minimum follow-up of 2 years.

resultsWe assisted in a satisfactory pain relief and functional improvements, without significant clinical and radiological differences in both groups. No further surgery was needed in patients with the screw/sheath tibial fixation. Seven patients with the screw/staples tibial fixation needed the surgical removal of the fixation devices due to pes anserinus irritation or local infection years after the index operation. Other parameters such as the tunnel enlargement were not statistically different in the two groups.

conclusionsGood clinical and radiological outcomes of ACL reconstruction by a screw/sheath tibial fixation have been reported showing comparable results with respect to screw/staples fixation. There were no failures associated with loss of fixation with either of tibial fixation methods. A fewer number of surgical removals of tibial devices were also recorded in patients treated by the screw/sheath fixation system, related to the absence of local intolerance or infection compared to subjects with a standard tibial fixation.

Indexed as

Absorbable ImplantsBone ScrewsSurgical StaplingAdolescentAdultAnterior Cruciate LigamentAnterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionFemaleFemurHumansMaleRadiographyTendonsTibiaTransplantation, AutologousYoung AdultACLACL reconstructionBioIntrafixBioRCIResorbable fixation devicesStapleTunnel enlargement

Identifiers

PMID27120190
OpenAlexW2343056193

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.