Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32394303›Full record

ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2020

Biomechanical testing of fixed and adjustable femoral cortical suspension devices for ACL reconstruction under high loads and extended cyclic loading.

Sarvpreet Singh, Sonia Ramos-Pascual, Kinga Czerbak, Muzaffar Malik, Peter J Schranz, Anthony W Miles, Vipul Mandalia

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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Anatomical rectangular tunnel anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction provides excellent clinical outcomes.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors.

Sarvpreet SinghExeter Knee Reconstruction Unit, Princess Elizabeth Orthopaedic Centre, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Exeter, UK.
Sonia Ramos-PascualCentre for Orthopaedic Biomechanics, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bath, Bath, UK. s.ramos.pascual@bath.ac.uk.
Kinga CzerbakCentre for Orthopaedic Biomechanics, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Muzaffar MalikDivision of Medical Education, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Brighton, BN1 9PH, Brighton, UK.
Peter J SchranzExeter Knee Reconstruction Unit, Princess Elizabeth Orthopaedic Centre, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Exeter, UK.
Anthony W MilesCentre for Orthopaedic Biomechanics, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Vipul MandaliaExeter Knee Reconstruction Unit, Princess Elizabeth Orthopaedic Centre, Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, Exeter, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare loop elongation after 5000 cycles, loop-elongation at failure, and load at failure of the fixed-loop G-Lok device and three adjustable-loop devices (UltraButton, RigidLoop Adjustable and ProCinch RT), during testing over extended cycles under high loading.

methodsFive devices of each type were tested on a custom-built rig fixed to an Instron machine. The testing protocol had four stages: preloading, cyclic preconditioning, incremental cyclic loading and pull-to-failure. Outcome measures were loop elongation after 5000 cycles, loop-elongation at failure, and load at failure.

resultsThe loop elongation after 5000 cycles for G-Lok was 1.46 ± 0.25 mm, which was comparable to that of RigidLoop (1.51 ± 0.16 mm, p = 1.000) and ProCinch (1.60 ± 0.09 mm, p = 1.000). In comparison, the loop elongation for UltraButton was 2.66 ± 0.28 mm, which was significantly larger than all other devices (p = 0.048). The failure load for all devices ranged between 1455 and 2178 N. G-Lok was significantly stronger than all adjustable-loop devices (p = 0.048). The elongation at failure was largest for UltraButton (4.20 ± 0.33 mm), which was significantly greater than G-Lok (3.17 ± 0.33 mm, p = 0.048), RigidLoop (2.88 ± 0.20 mm, p = 0.048) and ProCinch (2.78 ± 0.08 mm, p = 0.048). There was no significant difference in elongation at failure for the rest of the devices.

conclusionsOur study has shown that the G-Lok fixed-loop device and the three adjustable-loop devices (UltraButton, RigidLoop Adjustable and ProCinch RT) all elongated less than 3 mm during testing over an extended number of cycles at high loads, nonetheless, the fixed loop device performed best in terms of least elongation and highest load at failure.

Indexed as

Adjustable-loop femoral cortical suspension deviceAnterior cruciate ligament reconstructionBiomechanical testingExtended cyclic loadingFixed-loop femoral cortical suspension deviceHigh loads

Identifiers

PMID32394303
PMCPMC7214603

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.