ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2020
Revision of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a pedicled quadruple hamstring autograft.
Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chinese expert consensus on failure and revision after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.Journal of orthopaedic translation · 2025Article
- Etiology of Failed Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: a Scoping Review.Current reviews in musculoskeletal medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionResults of iterative ACL reconstructions are lower than after primary reconstructions. Our aim was to report the results of a retrospective series of revision using pedicled quadruple hamstring autograft. The hypothesis was that the results were satisfactory and comparable to the literature.
methodsThe study period was from January 2012 to December 2014. Fourteen patients (average age 26) were included. A fascia lata graft was used 12 times for primary reconstruction. Trauma was the cause of failure 12 times. The time interval between primary reconstruction and revision was 6.2 years. Preoperative scores used were LYSHOLM, TEGNER and IKDC. Sagittal stability was measured using the KT-1000 device. X-rays and MRI were performed to confirm the diagnosis, look for preoperative osteoarthritis and evaluate the position of the bony tunnels (Bernard and Hertel). Bone tunnels were in a proper position 14 times.
resultsAt 45-month follow-up, improvement of objective IKDC score was significant (85.7% A/B, p < 0.0002) as well as subjective IKDC score (85.5, p < 0.0004). A significant improvement was established for the LYSHOLM score (91.8, p = 0.001) using the Wilcoxon test. The average LYSHOLM score was 92% (p > 0.5), and the average TEGNER score was 5.5 (p = 0.003). The Lachman test found a hard stop in all patients. The pivot shift test was negative for 78.5% of the cases. The laxity measurement found 12 cases with less than 3 mm. One persistent distal hypoesthesia at 2-year follow-up was observed.
conclusionThe hypothesis was confirmed. This series differs by the cause of failure, which was essentially traumatic, and the initial predominance of a fascia lata graft. These results remain to be confirmed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective case series, level IV.
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.