ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2018
Arthroscopic Fixation for Tibial Eminence Fractures: Comparison of Double-Row and Transosseous Anchor Knot Fixation Techniques with Suture Anchors.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Management of type II tibial spine fractures in children and adolescents: a systematic review.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2026Pooled it
- Surgical management of tibial eminence avulsion fractures: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Pooled it
- Comparative clinical efficacy of "Figure-8" Banding and double-row anchor suture-bridge fixation in arthroscopic management of tibial intercondylar eminence avulsion fractures.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2024Article
- Arthroscopic fixation techniques for tibial eminence fractures in pediatric patients: a review.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Tibial eminence fractures often occur during sports participation, but the optimum choice of technique for treatment is still controversial. The aim of the current work was to compare the clinical outcomes of 2 new arthroscopic anchor fixation techniques for tibial eminence fracture. MATERIAL AND METHODS We included 72 isolated tibial eminence fracture patients treated at our hospital from October 2010 to August 2015; 37 patients received the classic double-row (DR) suture anchor fixation technique and 35 received the transosseous anchor knot (TAK) fixation under arthroscopy. The clinical efficacies of the 2 techniques were assessed by radiographs, Lysholm score, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score in follow-ups. RESULTS Patients were followed for 37.6 months (range, 18-54 months). There was no significant difference of the operative time between groups (P=0.169). Postoperative radiographs of all patients showed accurate reduction and fracture healing within 3 months. Lysholm and IKDC scores improved significantly compared with preoperative scores (P<0.001). However, no significant difference in the knee range of motion or improvement of Lysholm and IKDC scores was found between groups (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS The DR and TAK techniques provide precise reduction and stable fixation methods for treating tibial eminence fractures, and the clinical outcomes of the 2 arthroscopic techniques with suture anchors are satisfactory.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.