ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2018
Long-term outcomes after arthroscopic single-bundle reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament: A 7-year follow-up study.
Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Allografts as alternative to autografts in primary posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023Pooled it
- Ligament Advanced Reinforcement System (LARS) synthetic graft for PCL reconstruction: systematic review and meta-analysis.British medical bulletin · 2022Pooled it
- Hamstring, bone-patellar tendon-bone, quadriceps and peroneus longus tendon autografts for primary isolated posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review.British medical bulletin · 2022Pooled it
- Complications Related to Arthroscopic Isolated Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of 4162 Patients.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Review
- Surgical technique: posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction using double posteromedial arthroscopic portals.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Treatment of isolated talonavicular coalition: Case report and literature review.The Journal of international medical research · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective Arthroscopy is the most popular technique in posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction surgery. However, no consensus on long-term outcomes after arthroscopic PCL reconstruction has been reached. This study was performed to evaluate the long-term outcomes after arthroscopic autologous hamstring or allogeneic tendon single-bundle reconstruction of the PCL. Methods Fifty-eight patients who underwent arthroscopic PCL reconstruction in Anhui, China from 2007 to 2009 were included. The follow-up period ranged from 56 to 83 months. During the follow-up, the Lysholm knee score and Tegner activity score were used to assess knee function. The KT-2000 arthrometer (MEDmetric Corp., San Diego, CA, USA) was used to assess the stability of the reconstructed PCL. Results The mean Lysholm score, mean Tegner score, and mean forward and backward displacements were not significantly different between the final follow-up and 1 year after the surgery. Additionally, no significant differences were observed in any of the above-mentioned parameters between autologous and allogeneic reconstruction at the final follow-up. Conclusion Both autologous and allogeneic reconstruction had few complications and satisfactory long-term outcomes.
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.