Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30315365›Full record

Observational studyEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2019

The biological respect of the posterolateral bundle in ACL partial injuries. Retrospective analysis of 2 different surgical management of ACL partial tear in a population of high-demanding sport patients.

Roberto Buda, Matteo Baldassarri, Luca Perazzo, Diego Ghinelli, Cesare Faldini

Abstract readObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2019. 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
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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, 6 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Roberto BudaI Clinic, Rizzoli Orthopedic Institute, Bologna University, Via Giulio Cesare Pupilli 1, 40136, Bologna, Italy.
Matteo BaldassarriI Clinic, Rizzoli Orthopedic Institute, Bologna University, Via Giulio Cesare Pupilli 1, 40136, Bologna, Italy. dr.mbaldassarri@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5965-6712
Luca PerazzoI Clinic, Rizzoli Orthopedic Institute, Bologna University, Via Giulio Cesare Pupilli 1, 40136, Bologna, Italy.
Diego GhinelliVilla Maria Hospital, Viale Matteotti, 4, 47921, Rimini, Italy.
Cesare FaldiniI Clinic, Rizzoli Orthopedic Institute, Bologna University, Via Giulio Cesare Pupilli 1, 40136, Bologna, Italy.
University of Bologna · ITOrthopedic Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMost of the techniques described in the literature for the repair of chronic partial ACL tears do not spare the intact portion of the ligament. Aim of this study was to perform a retrospective analysis of the results obtained from the same ACL reconstructive surgical technique applicated by sparing or not AM bundle in a population of 42 sports patients. MATERIALS AND

methodsFrom 2010 to 2012, 42 patients who suffered ACL partial tear injury with rupture of posterolateral bundle were randomly divided in two groups homogenous for sex, age and sport-level activities. The first group with 22 patients performed ACL reconstruction with ST-GR over-the-top technique sacrificing the anteromedial (Removing AMT Group) remaining bundle intact; otherwise, the second group with 20 patients performed the same ACL reconstruction using only ST and maintaining AM bundle (Sparing AMT Group). All the patients were followed up by MRI evaluation at 12 months and clinical evaluation with IKDC score, Tegner score at 6, 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months. KT-1000 instrument was performed at 12 months. The results were analyzed statistically to evaluate differences between the two groups in terms of subjective outcome, and stability and for all the tests P < 0.05 was considered significant.

resultsWe did not observe any failure at final follow-up. IKDC subjective score at final follow-up in Removing AMT Group was 91.2 ± 2.3 in Sparing AMT Group was 92.4 ± 2.7. Tegner score at final follow-up was 7.2 ± 2.1 for Removing AMT Group and 7.8 ± 1.8 for Sparing AMT Group. Arthrometric evaluation performed with KT-1000 at final follow-up showed a side-to-side difference of 0.9 ± 1.3 mm in the Removing AMT Group against 0.8 ± 1.0 mm in the Sparing AMT Group. Return time to the sport was 7.1 months for Removing AMT Group otherwise 6.1 months for the Sparing AMT Group.

conclusionsBoth the described techniques in this study demonstrated to be able to guarantee a successful outcome. However, although no statistically significant differences were evident in terms of subjective and objective outcome between these techniques some evident benefits were evident using the sparing bundle technique in Sparing AMT Group such as better clinical scores at the final follow-up and an earlier return to sport activity.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAnterior Cruciate LigamentAnterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesAnterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionAthletic InjuriesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansKnee JointLysholm Knee ScoreMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleOrgan Sparing TreatmentsRandom AllocationRetrospective StudiesACLKneeSport injury

Identifiers

PMID30315365
OpenAlexW2897987916

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.