Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29679208›Full record

ReviewCurrent reviews in musculoskeletal medicine2018

Revision PCL Reconstruction Review/Update.

G Keith Gill, F Winston Gwathmey

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  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

2 authors.

G Keith GillUniversity of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA. Gkg3v@hscmail.mcc.virginia.edu.
F Winston GwathmeyUniversity of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThe primary goal of this review is to update recent literature on revision PCL reconstruction and to discuss factors relevant to surgical failure, surgical indications and goals, patient evaluation, surgical decision-making, graft selection, surgical technique, associated surgical procedures, postoperative rehabilitation, and revision PCL reconstruction results. RECENT

findingsSpecifically, it is paramount to consider and treat posteromedial and posterolateral instability. Success in revision surgery focuses on appropriate graft choice and precise tunnel placement at anatomical attachment sites. Furthermore, correct tensioning of the graft, secondary or backup fixation and well-designed PT and rehab protocols are integral components. The factors causing failure of the primary reconstruction should be identified, as revision surgery must address the errors and follow strict surgical principals to be successful. There are many variables that play a role in successful revision posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction. In general, as in most ligament reconstruction surgery, it is important to identify and address all associated pathology such as lower extremity malalignment and additional instability.

Indexed as

GraftPCLRevision

Identifiers

PMID29679208
PMCPMC5970126

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.