ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2020
Biomechanical testing of fixed and adjustable femoral cortical suspension devices for ACL reconstruction under high loads and extended cyclic loading.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Greater deformation and lower stiffness, but similar ultimate failure strength with fixed-loop cortical suspensory device compared to metal interference screw for femoral fixation of bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Biomechanical Stability of Third-Generation Adjustable Suture Loop Devices Versus Continuous Loop Button Device for Cortical Fixation of ACL Tendon Grafts.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2024Article
- Both Adjustable and Fixed Loop Hamstring Tendon Graft Fixation Have Similar Clinical and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Biomechanical Comparison of 3 Adjustable-Loop Suspensory Devices for All-Inside ACL Reconstruction: A Time-Zero Full-Construct Model.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2023Article
- Adjustable-loop implants are non-inferior to fixed-loop implants for femoral fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023Article
- Biomechanical comparison of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction fixation methods and implications on clinical outcomes.Annals of joint · 2023Review
- Anatomical rectangular tunnel anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction provides excellent clinical outcomes.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2022Article
- Outcomes of retro-drilled all-inside tibial tunnel vs complete tibial tunnel techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction-a comparative study.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2022Article
- In Vitro Testing of 2 Adjustable-Loop Cortical Suspensory Fixation Systems Versus Interference Screw for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.