Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28536855›Full record

ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2017

Rotational Laxity Control by the Anterolateral Ligament and the Lateral Meniscus Is Dependent on Knee Flexion Angle: A Cadaveric Biomechanical Study.

Timothy Lording, Gillian Corbo, Dianne Bryant, Timothy A Burkhart, Alan Getgood

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Commentary onJournal of the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Meniscal rim instability has a high prevalence and a variable location.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2023
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Timothy LordingMelbourne Orthopaedic Group, Windsor, VIC, Australia.
Gillian CorboAnatomy and Cell Biology, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Dianne BryantFaculty of Health Sciences, Western University, London, ON, Canada.
Timothy A BurkhartLawson Health Research Institute, London, ON, Canada.
Alan GetgoodFowler Kennedy Sport Medicine Clinic, Western University, 3M Centre, 1151 Richmond Street, London, ON, N6A 3K7, Canada. alan.getgood@uwo.ca.
Western University · CAHollywood Orthopaedic Group · AULawson Health Research Institute · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInjury to the anterolateral ligament (ALL) has been reported to contribute to high-grade anterolateral laxity after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. Failure to address ALL injury has been suggested as a cause of persistent rotational laxity after ACL reconstruction. Lateral meniscus posterior root (LMPR) tears have also been shown to cause increased internal rotation of the knee. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The purpose of this study was to determine the functional relationship between the ALL and LMPR in the control of internal rotation of the ACL-deficient knee. Specifically: (1) We asked if there was a difference in internal rotation among: the intact knee; the ACL-deficient knee; the ACL/ALL-deficient knee; the ACL/LMPR-deficient knee; and the ACL/ALL/LMPR-deficient knee. (2) We also asked if there was a difference in anterior translation among these conditions.

methodsSixteen fresh frozen cadaveric knee specimens (eight men, mean age 79 years) were potted into a hip simulator (femur) and a 6 degree-of-freedom load cell (tibia). Rigid optical trackers were inserted into the proximal femur and distal tibia, allowing for the motion of the tibia with respect to the femur to be tracked during biomechanical tests. A series of points on the femur and tibia were digitized to create bone coordinate systems that were used to calculate internal rotation and anterior translation. Biomechanical testing involved applying a 5-Nm internal rotation moment to the tibia from full extension to 90° of flexion. Anterior translation was performed by applying a 90-N anterior load using a tensiometer. Both tests were performed in 15° increments tested sequentially in the following conditions: (1) intact; and (2) ACL injury (ACL-). The specimens were then randomized to either have the ALL sectioned (3) first (M+/ALL-); or (4) the LMPR sectioned first (M-/ALL+) followed by the other structure (M-/ALL-). A one-way analysis of variance was performed for each sectioning condition at each angle of knee flexion (α = 0.05).

resultsAt 0° of flexion there was an effect of tissue sectioning such that internal rotation of the M-/ALL- condition was greater than ACL- by 1.24° (p = 0.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16-2.70) and the intact condition by 2.5° (p = 0.01; 95% CI, 0.69-3.91). In addition, the mean (SD) internal rotations for the M+/ALL- (9.99° [5.39°]) and M-/ALL+ (12.05° [5.34°]) were greater by 0.87° (p = 0.04; 95% CI, 0.13-3.83) and by 2.15°, respectively, compared with the intact knee. At 45° the internal rotation for the ACL- (19.15° [9.49°]), M+/ALL- (23.70° [7.00°]), and M-/ALL- (18.80° [8.27°]) conditions was different than the intact (12.78° [9.23°]) condition by 6.37° (p = 0.02; 95% CI, 1.37-11.41), 8.47° (p < 0.01; 95% CI, 3.94-13.00), and 6.02° (p = 0.01; 95% CI, 1.73-10.31), respectively. At 75° there was a 10.11° difference (p < 0.01; 95% CI, 5.20-15.01) in internal rotation between the intact (13.96° [5.34°]) and the M+/ALL- (23.22° [4.46°]) conditions. There was also a 4.08° difference (p = 0.01; 95% CI, 1.14-7.01) between the intact and M-/ALL- (18.05° [7.31°]) conditions. Internal rotation differences of 6.17° and 5.43° were observed between ACL- (16.28° [6.44°]) and M+/ALL- (p < 0.01; 95% CI, 2.45-9.89) as well as between M+/ALL- and M-/ALL- (p = 0.01; 95% CI, -8.17 to -1.63). Throughout the range of flexion, there was no difference in anterior translation with progressive section of the ACL, meniscus, or ALL.

conclusionsThe ALL and LMPR both play a role in aiding the ACL in controlling internal rotation laxity in vitro; however, these effects seem to be dependent on flexion angle. The ALL has a greater role in controlling internal rotation at flexion angles > 30 CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Injury to the ALL and/or LMPR may contribute to high-grade anterolateral laxity after ACL injury. The LMPR and the ALL, along with the iliotibial tract, appear to act in concert as secondary stabilizers of anterolateral rotation and could be considered as the "anterolateral corner" of the knee.

Indexed as

AgedAnterior Cruciate LigamentAnterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesBiomechanical PhenomenaCadaverFemaleFemurHumansJoint InstabilityKnee JointMaleMenisci, TibialRange of Motion, ArticularTibia

Identifiers

PMID28536855
PMCPMC5599389
OpenAlexW2619480134

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.