Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31921936›Full record

ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2020

Biomechanical Evaluation of Proximal Hamstring Repair: All-Suture Anchor Versus Titanium Suture Anchor.

Alexander Otto, Alyssa M DiCosmo, Joshua B Baldino, Julian Mehl, Elifho Obopilwe, Mark P Cote, Andreas B Imhoff, Knut Beitzel, Augustus D Mazzocca, Katherine Coyner

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Alexander OttoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, UConn Musculoskeletal Institute, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut, USA.
Alyssa M DiCosmoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, UConn Musculoskeletal Institute, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut, USA.
Joshua B BaldinoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, UConn Musculoskeletal Institute, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut, USA.
Julian MehlDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, UConn Musculoskeletal Institute, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut, USA.
Elifho ObopilweDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, UConn Musculoskeletal Institute, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut, USA.
Mark P CoteDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, UConn Musculoskeletal Institute, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut, USA.
Andreas B ImhoffDepartment of Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Knut BeitzelDepartment of Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Augustus D MazzoccaDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, UConn Musculoskeletal Institute, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut, USA.
Katherine CoynerDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, UConn Musculoskeletal Institute, University of Connecticut, Farmington, Connecticut, USA.
UConn Health · USKlinikum rechts der Isar · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProximal hamstring avulsions are severe tendon injuries and are commonly sports-related. Open and endoscopic techniques as well as different anchor configurations have already been described for proximal hamstring repair. Novel all-suture anchors have been developed to provide decreased bone loss during placement and reduced occupied bone volume when compared with titanium suture anchors. HYPOTHESIS: Complete proximal hamstring avulsions repaired with all-suture anchors will demonstrate equal load to failure and comparable displacement under cyclic loading when compared with titanium suture anchors. STUDY

designControlled laboratory study.

methodsComplete proximal hamstring avulsions were created in 18 paired cadaveric specimens (mean ± SD age, 63.0 ± 10.4 years). Either all-suture anchors or titanium suture anchors were used for repair. Cyclic loading from 10 to 125 N at 1 Hz was performed for 1500 cycles with a material testing machine. Displacement was assessed along anterior and posterior aspects of the tendon repair with optical tracking. Specimens were loaded to failure at a rate of 120 mm/min. Displacement, load to failure, and repair construct stiffness were compared between matched pairs with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Correlations were determined by Spearman rho analysis.

resultsThe all-suture anchors showed significantly higher load-to-failure values when compared with the titanium anchor repairs (799.64 ± 257.1 vs 573.27 ± 89.9 N;

conclusionAll-suture anchors demonstrated similar displacement and superior load to failure when compared with titanium suture anchors. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results of this study suggest that all-suture anchors are an equivalent alternative to titanium suture anchors for proximal hamstring avulsion repair.

Indexed as

all-suture anchorbiomechanicshipproximal hamstring avulsionproximal hamstring repairtitanium suture anchor

Identifiers

PMID31921936
PMCPMC6940602
OpenAlexW2998104998

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.