Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29396585›Full record

ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2018

Dynamic augmentation restores anterior tibial translation in ACL suture repair: a biomechanical comparison of non-, static and dynamic augmentation techniques.

Roy A G Hoogeslag, Reinoud W Brouwer, Rianne Huis In 't Veld, Joanna M Stephen, Andrew A Amis

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Dynamic intraligamentary stabilization for ACL repair: a systematic review.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Roy A G HoogeslagCentre for Orthopaedic Surgery OCON, Hengelo, The Netherlands. hoogeslag@me.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1588-086X
Reinoud W BrouwerDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, Martini Hospital, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Rianne Huis In 't VeldCentre for Orthopaedic Surgery OCON, Hengelo, The Netherlands.
Joanna M StephenBiomechanics Group, Mechanical Engineering Department, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Andrew A AmisBiomechanics Group, Mechanical Engineering Department, Imperial College London, London, UK.
OCON Orthopedische kliniek · NLFortius Clinic · GBImperial College London · GBMartini Ziekenhuis · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThere is a lack of objective evidence investigating how previous non-augmented ACL suture repair techniques and contemporary augmentation techniques in ACL suture repair restrain anterior tibial translation (ATT) across the arc of flexion, and after cyclic loading of the knee. The purpose of this work was to test the null hypotheses that there would be no statistically significant difference in ATT after non-, static- and dynamic-augmented ACL suture repair, and they will not restore ATT to normal values across the arc of flexion of the knee after cyclic loading.

methodsEleven human cadaveric knees were mounted in a test rig, and knee kinematics from 0° to 90° of flexion were recorded by use of an optical tracking system. Measurements were recorded without load and with 89-N tibial anterior force. The knees were tested in the following states: ACL-intact, ACL-deficient, non-augmented suture repair, static tape augmentation and dynamic augmentation after 10 and 300 loading cycles.

resultsOnly static tape augmentation and dynamic augmentation restored ATT to values similar to the ACL-intact state directly postoperation, and maintained this after cyclic loading. However, contrary to dynamic augmentation, the ATT after static tape augmentation failed to remain statistically less than for the ACL-deficient state after cyclic loading. Moreover, after cyclic loading, ATT was significantly less with dynamic augmentation when compared to static tape augmentation.

conclusionIn contrast to non-augmented ACL suture repair and static tape augmentation, only dynamic augmentation resulted in restoration of ATT values similar to the ACL-intact knee and decreased ATT values when compared to the ACL-deficient knee immediately post-operation and also after cyclic loading, across the arc of flexion, thus allowing the null hypotheses to be rejected. This may assist healing of the ruptured ACL. Therefore, this study would support further clinical evaluation of dynamic augmentation of ACL repair.

Indexed as

Suture TechniquesAdultAnterior Cruciate LigamentAnterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionBiomechanical PhenomenaCadaverFemaleHumansKnee JointMaleMiddle AgedSurgical TapeWeight-BearingACL suture repairAnterior cruciate ligamentBiomechanics of ligamentKnee

Identifiers

PMID29396585
OpenAlexW2786877285

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.