Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30824978›Full record

ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2019

Femoral-tibial fixation affects risk of revision and reoperation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring autograft.

Lindsey M Spragg, Heather A Prentice, Andrew Morris, Tadashi T Funahashi, Gregory B Maletis, Rick P Csintalan

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Revision of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a pedicled quadruple hamstring autograft.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2020
    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

6 authors.

Lindsey M SpraggDepartment of Orthopaedics, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, 6670 Alton Pkwy, Irvine, CA, 92618, USA.
Heather A PrenticeSurgical Outcomes and Analysis, Kaiser Permanente, San Diego, CA, USA.
Andrew MorrisDepartment of Orthopaedics, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA.
Tadashi T FunahashiDepartment of Orthopaedics, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, 6670 Alton Pkwy, Irvine, CA, 92618, USA.
Gregory B MaletisDepartment of Orthopaedics, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Baldwin Park, CA, USA.
Rick P CsintalanDepartment of Orthopaedics, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, 6670 Alton Pkwy, Irvine, CA, 92618, USA. Rick.P.Csintalan@kp.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeNewer fixation devices for hamstring (HS) autograft have been introduced over the years, yet the impact of these devices on ACLR outcomes requiring surgical intervention remains unclear. We sought to evaluate the risk of aseptic revision and reoperation after HS autograft ACLR according to various femoral-tibial fixation methods.

methodsA cohort study was conducted using the Kaiser Permanente ACLR Registry. Primary isolated unilateral ACLR patients who received a HS autograft were identified (2007-2014). Fixation devices were categorized as crosspin, interference, suspensory, or combination (defined as more than one fixation device used on the same side) and femoral-tibial fixation groups used in more than 500 ACLR were evaluated. Cox proportional-hazard regression was used to evaluate the association between femoral-tibial fixation method and outcomes while adjusting for confounders.

results6,593 primary ACLR were included. Four femoral-tibial fixation groups had more than 500 ACLR: suspensory-interference (n = 3004, 45.6%), interference-interference (n = 1659, 25.2%), suspensory-combination (n = 1103, 16.7%), and crosspin-interference (n = 827, 12.5%). After adjusting for covariates, revision risk was lower for crosspin-interference (HR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.29-0.65) and interference-interference (HR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.41-0.95) methods compared to the suspensory-interference. In contrast, reoperation risk was higher for crosspin-interference (HR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.37-3.32) and suspensory-combination (HR = 1.68, 95% CI 1.04-2.69) methods compared to suspensory-interference.

conclusionsACLR using HS autograft appears to have the lowest risk of aseptic revision when crosspin or interference fixation is used on the femoral side and is coupled with an interference screw on the tibial side. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Indexed as

Anterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesAnterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionBone ScrewsFemaleFemurHamstring TendonsHumansMaleProspective StudiesRegistriesReoperationRisk FactorsSecond-Look SurgeryTibiaTransplantation, AutologousYoung AdultACL reconstructionFemoral fixationHamstring autograftReoperationRevisionTibial fixation

Identifiers

PMID30824978

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.