Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28299388›Full record

ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2017

The combination of tibial anterior translation and axial rotation into a single biomechanical factor improves the prediction of patient satisfaction over each factor alone in patients with ACL reconstructed knees.

Thomas P Branch, Shaun K Stinton, William C Hutton, Philippe Neyret

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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

4 authors.

Thomas P BranchUniversity Orthopedics, Decatur, GA, USA.
Shaun K StintonArthroMetrix LLC, 441 Armour Place NE, Atlanta, GA, 30324, USA. stinton@gmail.com.
William C HuttonDepartment of Orthopaedics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Philippe NeyretDepartment Orthopedic Surgery, Centre Albert-Trillat, Hôpital de la Croix-Rousse, Lyon, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe purpose of this study was to identify biomechanical factors, in both reconstructed and healthy knees, that correlate with patient satisfaction after ACL reconstruction.

methodsSeventeen patients who had undergone unilateral ACL reconstruction were reviewed 9 years post-op. Patients completed subjective questionnaires and underwent manual knee laxity testing (Lachman-Trillat, KT-1000, and pivot shift) and automated laxity testing. During automated testing, both legs were rotated into external rotation and then internal rotation until peak rotational torque reached 5.65 Nm. Load-deformation curves were generated from torque and rotation data. Features of the curves were extracted for analysis. Total leg rotation and anterior laxity during KT-1000 testing were combined into a single factor (Joint Play Envelope or JPE). Patients were divided into groups based on patient satisfaction scores (Group 1: Higher Satisfaction, Group 2: Lower Satisfaction, Group 3: Unsatisfied). Load-deformation curve features and manual laxity testing results were compared between groups 1 and 2 to determine which biomechanical factors could distinguish between the groups. Diagnostic screening values were calculated for KT-1000 testing, the pivot shift test, total leg rotation and JPE.

resultsDuring manual testing, no significant differences in biomechanical factors were found when comparing reconstructed knees in group 1 and group 2. When comparing the reconstructed and healthy knees within group 2, the reconstructed knees had a significantly higher displacement during the KT-1000 manual maximum test (p < 0.002). When considering the reconstructed knees alone, neither the result of the pivot shift test nor KT-1000 testing could distinguish between group 1 and group 2. During automated testing, there were no significant differences between the groups when comparing the reconstructed lower limbs. The healthy lower limbs in group 2 had more maximum external rotation (p < 0.02) and decreased stiffness at maximum external rotation (p < 0.02) when compared to the healthy lower limbs in group 1. Total leg rotation was unable to distinguish between group 1 and group 2. JPE could distinguish between group 1 and group 2 when considering the reconstructed limb alone (p < 0.02). All four diagnostic screening values for JPE were equal or higher than in the other criteria. JPE also showed the most significant correlation with patient satisfaction.

conclusionsJoint Play Envelope is an objective measure that demonstrated improved predictive value as compared to other tests when used as a measure of satisfaction in patients with ACL reconstructed knees.

Indexed as

Anterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionPatient SatisfactionFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansJoint InstabilityKnee JointMaleRetrospective StudiesRotationACLACL reconstructionAnterior knee laxityJoint play envelopeKnee laxityPatient satisfactionRotational knee laxity

Identifiers

PMID28299388
PMCPMC5420376

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.