Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32222847›Full record

ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2020

The improved cortical button shows better breaking strength of sutures compared with 10 original cortical button after cyclic loading.

Toshiaki Takahashi, Manabu Takahashi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Toshiaki TakahashiDepartment of Sports and Health Science, Faculty of Collaborative Regional Innovation, Ehime University, 3 Bunkyo-cho, Matsuyama, Ehime, 790-8577, Japan. takahast@m.ehime-u.ac.jp.
Manabu TakahashiDepartment of Industrial Innovation, Faculty of Collaborative Regional Innovation, Ehime University, 3 Bunkyo-cho, Matsuyama, Ehime, 790-8577, Japan.

Funding

Kakenhi C, Japan 15K01293
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSuspensory cortical buttons are widely used for fixation of reconstructed ligaments during anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction because they have high usability and a favorable fixing force. However, it is not always easy to fix a reconstructed ACL while maintaining appropriate ligament tension. Therefore, we developed an improved cortical button that provides temporary tension until suturing is completed.

methodsButton holes of our improved EndoButton are not perpendicular to the bone surface on which the button is placed, but have an angle of 45 degrees so that the button can be temporarily fixed by applying tension to the suture. The improved EndoButton and the original EndoButton (Smith & Nephew Inc., Andover, Massachusetts) were each tied to FiberWire 5/7 metric (5 M) (manufactured by Arthrex). Ten cycles of preliminary loading (0-50 N) were applied to each suture, followed by test loading (0-250 N) for 500 or 1000 cycles. Then, a tensile test was performed at a displacement velocity of 20 mm/min.

resultsThe breaking strength of the sutures of the improved EndoButton were tend to higher than those of the sutures of the original EndoButton after 1000 loading cycles (p = 0.067, d = 0.883). The moduli of rigidity of the sutures of the improved EndoButton were higher than those of the sutures of the original EndoButton after 500 loading cycles (p = 0.027) and remained almost the same regardless of the number of loading cycles.

conclusionWe found that compared with the original cortical button, the improved cortical button was better able to retain suture breaking strength and modulus of rigidity, regardless of the number of load cycles.

Indexed as

Breaking strength of suturesCortical buttonImproved EndoButtonModulus of rigidity

Identifiers

PMID32222847
PMCPMC7103022

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.