ArticleDer Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen2020
[Comparable results after arthroscopic replacement of the anterior cruciate ligament : Clinical and functional results after single bundle and double bundle reconstruction].
Article in Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Study on the use of 3D printed guides in the individualized reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2024Article
- Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury in Clinical Treatment of Joint Complications and CT Observation.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2021Article
- [Modified arthroscopic technique to replace the posterior cruciate ligament in multiligament knee injuries : Results compared to open tibial inlay technique].Der Unfallchirurg · 2020Article
- The Forgotten Joint Score-12 in Anterior Cruciate Ligament injuries.Journal of orthopaedicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRupture of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) has been surgically reconstructed mainly arthroscopically for many years. The long-propagated single bundle replacement was followed by recommendations for the anatomical double-bundle reconstruction. The aim of this study is the evaluation of clinical follow-up results in terms of function and stability after performing an ACL reconstruction with both the single bundle (SB) and the double bundle (DB) technique. METHODOLOGY: Eighty patients receiving ACL reconstruction were included (41 SB / 39 DB). The follow-up period was 17.4 months. To assess knee joint stability, anteroposterior translation and rotation translation were determined. In addition, arthrometric measurement and the implementation of standardized scores were performed. Data were statistically evaluated using the Pearson χ
resultsWhile the Lachman test in the SB group showed a significant (p = 0.032) greater stability of the knee joints, a higher stability of the knee joints in the DB group was documented by the anterior drawer test and the stability measurement with the rolimeter. In the DB group a significantly higher number of patients with local sensitivity deficits (p = 0.045) and paresthesia as well as a significantly higher active and passive flexion deficit were noted compared to the SB group (p = 0.09 / p = 0.038, respectively).
conclusionBased on the results of this study it is currently not possible to give any recommendations regarding any operating procedure after a follow-up period of at least 12 months. However, there is evidence of a higher complication rate in the DB group. Clinically, these results should be considered in the evaluation of the indications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31642938What 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.