ArticleYonsei medical journal2016
A Comparison between Clinical Results of Selective Bundle and Double Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.
Article in Yonsei medical journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Clinical Outcomes and Biomechanical Considerations of Graft Selection-A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Prevalence of anterolateral ligament injuries and lateral meniscus tear on MR imaging in patients with both-bundle tear vs. selective bundle incomplete tear of the anterior cruciate ligament.European radiology · 2022Article
- The Push-Through Sign-Making the Decision for Selective-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Surgery.Arthroscopy techniques · 2020Article
- [Research progress of double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in adolescents].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 2019Review
- Selective bundle versus complete anterior-cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of orthopaedicsReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic anatomical double bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with either selective anteromedial (AM) or posterolateral (PL) bundle reconstruction while preserving a relatively healthy ACL bundle. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe authors evaluated 98 patients with a mean follow-up of 30.8±4.0 months who had undergone DB or selective bundle ACL reconstructions. Of these, 34 cases underwent DB ACL reconstruction (group A), 34 underwent selective AM bundle reconstruction (group B), and 30 underwent selective PL bundle reconstructions (group C). These groups were compared with respect to Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, side-to-side differences of anterior laxity measured by KT-2000 arthrometer at 30 lbs, and stress radiography and Lachman and pivot shift test results. Pre- and post-operative data were objectively evaluated using a statistical approach.
resultsThe preoperative anterior instability measured by manual stress radiography at 90° of knee flexion in group A was significantly greater than that in groups B and C (all p<0.001). At last follow-up, mean side-to-side instrumented laxities measured by the KT-2000 and manual stress radiography were significantly improved from preoperative data in all groups (all p<0.001). There were no significant differences between the three groups in anterior instability measured by KT-2000 arthrometer, pivot shift, or functional scores.
conclusionSelective bundle reconstruction in partial ACL tears offers comparable clinical results to DB reconstruction in complete ACL tears.
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.