ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2019
Computed Tomography Assessment of Anatomic Graft Placement After ACL Reconstruction: A Comparative Study of Grid and Angle Measurements.
Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Flexible reamers create comparable anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction femoral tunnels without the hyperflexion required with rigid reamers: 3D-CT analysis of tunnel morphology in a randomised clinical trial.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2020Trial
- Article
- Tibial Tunnel Placement in ACL Reconstruction Using a Novel Grid and Biplanar Stereoradiographic Imaging.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe anatomic placement of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) grafts is often assessed with postoperative imaging. In clinical practice, graft angles are measured to indicate anatomic placement on magnetic resonance imaging, whereas grid measurements are performed on computed tomography (CT). Recently, a study indicated that graft angle measurements could also be assessed on CT. No consensus has yet been reached on which measurement method is best suited to assess anatomic graft placement. PURPOSE: To compare the ability of grid measurements and angle measurements to identify anatomic versus nonanatomic tunnel placement on CT performed in patients undergoing ACL reconstruction. STUDY
designCase series; Level of evidence, 4.
methodsA total of 100 knees undergoing primary reconstruction with a hamstring graft (HAM group), 91 undergoing reconstruction with a bone-patellar tendon-bone graft (BPTB group), and 117 undergoing revision ACL reconstruction (REV group) were assessed with CT. Grid measurements of the femoral and tibial tunnels and angle measurements of grafts were performed. Graft placement, rated as anatomic or nonanatomic, was assessed with both methods. Pearson chi-square, analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis, and weighted kappa tests were performed as appropriate.
resultsThe grid assessment classified 10% of the HAM group, 4% of the BPTB group, and 17% of the REV group as nonanatomic (
conclusionThe agreement between grid measurements and angle measurements was very low. The angle measurements seemed to overestimate nonanatomic tunnel placement. Grid measurements were better in identifying malpositioned grafts.
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.