Trial reportClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2020
Mechanical evaluation of tibial fixation of the hamstring tendon in anterior cruciate ligament double-bundle reconstruction with and without interference screws.
Trial report in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
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 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study was to compare two postero-lateral bundle (PLB) tibial fixation techniques for the reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament with double bundle: a technique without the use of an interference screw, preserving the native tibial insertion of the tendons of the gracilis and semitendineous muscles, and a technique with the use of an interference screw and without preserving the insertion of the tendons.
methodsA comparative study was conducted in cadavers with a universal mechanical test machine. In total, 23 cadaver knees were randomized for tibial fixation of the PLB using the two techniques: Maintaining the tibial insertion of the tendons during reconstruction, without the use of an interference screw (group A, 11 cases); and fixating the graft with an interference screw, without maintaining the insertion of the tendons (group B, 12 cases). A continuous traction was performed (20 mm/min) in the same direction as the produced tunnel, and force (N), elongation (mm), rigidity (N/mm), and tension (N/mm2) were objectively determined in each group.
resultsGroup A exhibited a maximum force (MF) of 315.4±124.7 N; maximum tension of 13.57±3.65 N/mm2; maximum elongation of 19.73±4.76 mm; force at the limit of proportionality (FLP) of 240.6±144.0 N; and an elongation at the limit of proportionality of 14.37±6.58 mm. Group B exhibited a MF of 195.7±71.8 N; maximum tension of 8.8±3.81 N/mm2; maximum elongation of 15.3±10.73 mm; FLP of 150.1±68.7 N; and an elongation at the limit of proportionality of 6.86±2.42 mm. When comparing the two groups, significant differences were observed in the variables of maximum force (p=0.016), maximum tension (p=0.019), maximum elongation (p=0.007), and elongation at the limit of proportionality (p=0.003).
conclusionThe use of the native insertion of the semitendineous and gracilis tendons, without an additional fixation device, presented mechanical superiority over their fixation with interference screws.
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.