ArticleDer Unfallchirurg2020
[Modified arthroscopic technique to replace the posterior cruciate ligament in multiligament knee injuries : Results compared to open tibial inlay technique].
Article in Der Unfallchirurg, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury in Clinical Treatment of Joint Complications and CT Observation.Journal of healthcare engineering · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is no standard procedure regarding surgical treatment of multiligament knee injuries involving rupture of the posterior cruciate ligament.
objectiveDoes the modified and purely arthroscopic operation technique show similarly good results compared to the familiar open tibial inlay technique?
methodsA total of four patients were surgically treated using the open tibial inlay technique (group A) and seven using the modified arthroscopic approach (group B). The prospectively designed follow-up examination comprised the Lysholm score, the subjective questionnaire of the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score as well as the specifically extended Orthopedic Working Group Knee (OAK) score for clinical assessment. Tests on translational movability of the knee joint were performed with the Rolimeter®. The level of statistical significance alpha was set at 5%.
resultsThe follow-up examination took place on average 28.5 ± 19.60 months and 30.6 ± 26.26 months postoperatively in groups A and B, respectively. Groups A and B recorded mean 70.3 ± 5.32 and 69.6 ± 19.82 points in the Lysholm score, respectively. In the subjective IKDC score group A showed 67.3 ± 7.76 points and group B 65.9 ± 12.35 points. The OAK score was 77.5 ± 6.10 points in group A and 75.3 ± 11.31 points in group B. The side difference in the posterior drawer test was 1.75 ± 1.192 mm in group A and 2.50 ± 2.160 mm in group B. In the reverse Lachman test differences of 2.37 ± 2.175 mm and 3.22 ± 2.059 mm were measured in groups A and B, respectively. All values showed no significant differences between the two evaluated groups.
conclusionThe results of the two operation techniques were not significantly different. The arthroscopic approach is therefore regarded as the preferred method in this institute.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31834418What 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.