Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29977937›Full record

ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2018

Biomechanical Comparison of Epiphyseal Anterior Cruciate Ligament Fixation Using a Cortical Button Construct Versus an Interference Screw and Sheath Construct in Skeletally Immature Cadaveric Specimens.

Alex G Dukas, Kevin G Shea, Carl W Nissen, Elifho Obopilwe, Peter D Fabricant, Peter C Cannamela, Matthew D Milewski

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 89% 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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Alex G DukasDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut, USA.
Kevin G SheaDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, St Luke's Health System, Boise, Idaho, USA.
Carl W NissenDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut, USA.
Elifho ObopilweHuman Soft Tissue Research Laboratory, UConn Musculoskeletal Institute, Farmington, Connecticut, USA.
Peter D FabricantDivision of Pediatric Orthopedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York, USA.
Peter C CannamelaDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, St Luke's Health System, Boise, Idaho, USA.
Matthew D MilewskiDivision of Sports Medicine, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Boston Children's Hospital · USConnecticut Children's Medical Center · USHospital for Special Surgery · USUConn Health · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures have become increasingly common in pediatric and adolescent athletes. While multiple methods exist, all-epiphyseal ACL reconstruction is a popular technique in the skeletally immature patient. Given the high rate of reruptures in this population and the increasing number of commercially available fixation devices, biomechanical testing is crucial to understand the performance of these devices in pediatric epiphyseal bone. To our knowledge, there has not been a biomechanical analysis of ACL fixation devices in skeletally immature bone. PURPOSE: To compare cortically based button fixation with interference screw and sheath fixation in skeletally immature femoral epiphyseal cadaveric bone. Our hypothesis was that there would be no difference in peak load to failure, stiffness, or cyclic displacement between these 2 fixation constructs. STUDY

designControlled laboratory study.

methodsFresh-frozen matched-pair knees from 3 pediatric cadaveric specimens were obtained. A synthetic graft was fixed in an all-epiphyseal femoral tunnel. Both the lateral and medial condyles were utilized to increase the sample size. Specimens were randomized and assigned to receive either an interference screw and sheath construct designed for pediatric patients or an adjustable loop cortical button. Biomechanical testing was performed to obtain ultimate load to failure, stiffness, total displacement after 500 cycles, and the failure mode for each condyle.

resultsEach medial and lateral condyle in 3 pairs of skeletally immature cadaveric knees (ages 7, 9, and 11 years) was utilized for testing. One specimen was excluded after it failed by having a transphyseal fracture. The median peak load to failure was 769.80 N (interquartile range [IQR], 628.50-930.41 N) for the screw and sheath group and 862.80 N (IQR, 692.34-872.65 N) for the button group (

conclusionWhen comparing femoral fixation with a screw and sheath construct developed for pediatric patients to an adjustable loop cortical button in skeletally immature bone, our results showed that fixation did not significantly differ with respect to cyclic displacement or peak load to failure. While the screw and sheath construct was significantly stiffer, its effect on clinical outcomes is not yet known. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: With regard to femoral fixation, there is no significant biomechanical difference between the use of cortically based button fixation or interference screw and sheath fixation in pediatric epiphyseal cadaveric bone.

Indexed as

ACLadolescentall-epiphysealanterior cruciate ligamentbiomechanicspediatricskeletally immature

Identifiers

PMID29977937
PMCPMC6024523
OpenAlexW2808400639

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.