Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31307221›Full record

ArticleThe American journal of sports medicine2019

Anterior and Rotational Knee Laxity Does Not Affect Patient-Reported Knee Function 2 Years After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Robert Magnussen, Emily K Reinke, Laura J Huston, MOON Knee Group, Jack T Andrish, Charles L Cox, Warren R Dunn, David C Flanigan, Timothy Hewett, Morgan H Jones and 11 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The American 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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Delaying anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction for more than 3 or 6 months results in lower risk of revision surgery.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

21 authors.

Robert MagnussenInvestigation performed at The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Emily K ReinkeInvestigation performed at The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Laura J HustonInvestigation performed at The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
MOON Knee GroupInvestigation performed at The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Jack T AndrishInvestigation performed at The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Charles L CoxInvestigation performed at The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Warren R DunnInvestigation performed at The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
David C FlaniganInvestigation performed at The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Timothy HewettInvestigation performed at The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Morgan H JonesInvestigation performed at The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Christopher C KaedingInvestigation performed at The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Dawn LorringInvestigation performed at The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Matthew J MatavaInvestigation performed at The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Richard D ParkerInvestigation performed at The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Angela PedrozaInvestigation performed at The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Emily PrestonInvestigation performed at The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Brian RichardsonInvestigation performed at The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Bettina SchroederInvestigation performed at The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Matthew V SmithInvestigation performed at The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Rick W WrightInvestigation performed at The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.
Kurt P SpindlerInvestigation performed at The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.

Funding

Prognosis and Predictors of ACL Reconstruction: A Multicenter Cohort StudyR01AR053684 · NIAMS · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY · PI SPINDLER, KURT PAUL · 2006 to 2020
$8.3M
Meniscus status and activity level after ACLK23AR066133 · NIAMS · CLEVELAND CLINIC LERNER COM-CWRU · PI JONES, MORGAN HERANCOURT · 2015 to 2019
$745k
NIAMS NIH HHS K23 AR066133NIAMS NIH HHS R01 AR053684
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile a primary goal of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is to reduce pathologically increased anterior and rotational knee laxity, the relationship between knee laxity after ACL reconstruction and patient-reported knee function remains unclear. HYPOTHESIS: There would be no significant correlation between the degree of residual anterior and rotational knee laxity and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) 2 years after primary ACL reconstruction. STUDY

designCross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.

methodsFrom a prospective multicenter nested cohort of patients, 433 patients younger than 36 years of age injured in sports with no history of concomitant ligament surgery, revision ACL surgery, or surgery of the contralateral knee were identified and evaluated at a minimum 2 years after primary ACL reconstruction. Each patient underwent Lachman and pivot-shift evaluation as well as a KT-1000 arthrometer assessment along with Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores. A proportional odds logistic regression model was used to predict each 2-year PRO score, controlling for preoperative score, age, sex, body mass index, smoking, Marx activity score, education, subsequent surgery, meniscal and cartilage status, graft type, and range of motion asymmetry. Measures of knee laxity were independently added to each model to determine correlation with PROs.

resultsSide-to-side manual Lachman differences were IKDC A in 246 (57%) patients, IKDC B in 183 (42%) patients, and IKDC C in 4 (<1%) patients. Pivot-shift was classified as IKDC A in 209 (48%) patients, IKDC B in 183 (42%) patients, and IKDC C in 11 (2.5%) patients. The mean side-to-side KT-1000 difference was 2.0 ± 2.6 mm. No significant correlations were noted between pivot-shift or anterior tibial translation as assessed by Lachman or KT-1000 and any PRO. All predicted differences in PROs based on IKDC A versus B pivot-shift and anterior tibial translation were less than 4 points.

conclusionNeither the presence of IKDC A versus B pivot-shift nor increased anterior tibial translation of up to 6 mm is associated with clinically relevant decreases in PROs 2 years after ACL reconstruction.

Indexed as

Anterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresAdultAnterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansJoint InstabilityKnee JointMaleMeniscusMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRange of Motion, ArticularReoperationACL reconstructionknee laxitypatient-reported outcomes

Identifiers

PMID31307221
PMCPMC7269119

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.