Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29171322›Full record

ArticleActa orthopaedica2018

Graft fixation influences revision risk after ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendon autografts.

Andreas Persson, Tone Gifstad, Martin Lind, Lars Engebretsen, Knut Fjeldsgaard, Jon Olav Drogset, Magnus Forssblad, Birgitte Espehaug, Asle B Kjellsen, Jonas M Fevang

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Acta orthopaedica, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.0field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Strength in numbers? The fragility index of studies from the Scandinavian knee ligament registries.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Low annual hospital volume of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is not associated with higher revision rates.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

10 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.

Andreas Perssona Department of Orthopaedic Surgery , Haukeland University Hospital , Bergen , Norway.
Tone Gifstadc Department of Orthopaedic Surgery , Trondheim University Hospital , Trondheim , Norway.
Martin Linde Department of Orthopaedics , Aarhus University Hospital , Aarhus , Denmark.
Lars Engebretsenf Department of Orthopaedic Surgery , Oslo University Hospital , Oslo , Norway.
Knut Fjeldsgaarda Department of Orthopaedic Surgery , Haukeland University Hospital , Bergen , Norway.
Jon Olav Drogsetc Department of Orthopaedic Surgery , Trondheim University Hospital , Trondheim , Norway.
Magnus Forssbladi Stockholm Sports Trauma Research Center, Karolinska Institutet , Stockholm , Sweden.
Birgitte Espehaugj Centre for Evidence-Based Practice, Bergen University College , Bergen , Norway.
Asle B Kjellsena Department of Orthopaedic Surgery , Haukeland University Hospital , Bergen , Norway.
Jonas M Fevanga Department of Orthopaedic Surgery , Haukeland University Hospital , Bergen , Norway.
Haukeland University Hospital · NOAarhus University Hospital · DKKarolinska Institutet · SENorwegian School of Sport Sciences · NONorwegian University of Science and Technology · NOSt Olav's University Hospital · NOUniversity of Bergen · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and purpose - A large number of fixation methods of hamstring tendon autograft (HT) are available for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Some studies report an association between fixation method and the risk of revision ACLR. We compared the risk of revision of various femoral and tibial fixation methods used for HT in Scandinavia 2004-2011. Materials and methods - A register-based study of 38,666 patients undergoing primary ACLRs with HT, with 1,042 revision ACLRs. The overall median follow-up time was 2.8 (0-8) years. Fixation devices used in a small number of patients were grouped according to design and the point of fixation. Results - The most common fixation methods were Endobutton (36%) and Rigidfix (31%) in the femur; and interference screw (48%) and Intrafix (34%) in the tibia. In a multivariable Cox regression model, the transfemoral fixations Rigidfix and Transfix had a lower risk of revision (HR 0.7 [95% CI 0.6-0.8] and 0.7 [CI 0.6-0.9] respectively) compared with Endobutton. In the tibia the retro interference screw had a higher risk of revision (HR 1.9 [CI 1.3-2.9]) compared with an interference screw. Interpretation - The choice of graft fixation influences the risk of revision after primary ACLR with hamstring tendon autograft.

Indexed as

RegistriesReoperationAdolescentAdultAnterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesAnterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionFemaleHamstring TendonsHumansInternal FixatorsMaleRisk FactorsScandinavian and Nordic CountriesTenodesisTransplantation, AutologousYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID29171322
PMCPMC5901519
OpenAlexW2770831970

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.