ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2020
Is quadruple semitendinosus tendon strands autograft a better choice than hamstring autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? A comparative study with a mean follow-up of 3 years.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- No differences between 4-strand semitendinosus or semitendinosus/gracilis grafts in revision rates, knee stability and patient-reported outcomes after primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Article
- Single bundle hamstrings autograft preparation techniques for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: current concepts.Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery · 2024Review
- Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a single hamstring tendon graft and tape locking screw (TLS) fixation leads to good clinical outcome in two years of follow-up.Journal of orthopaedics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of ST4 with those of STGs with a minimum follow-up of 3 years. The hypothesis was that functional outcomes of the ST4 technique are at least as good as those of the STG technique. STUDY
designCohort study. Level of evidence, 3
methodsEighty-seven consecutive patients underwent isolated ACL reconstruction, 50 with the ST4 and 37 with STG. At the femoral side for both groups, the system of the fixation of the graft used a cortical fixation support and at the tibial side the group STG used an interference screw and the ST4 group used a tape locked system fixed by an interference screw. Clinical results were compared: IKDC score, KT-1000 arthrometry, radiologic evaluation of the differential laxity, as well as the Tegner score and the KOOS score.
resultsTwo patients had a rerupture (STG), one in the ST4 group. The analysis of the subjective clinical results showed no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups. Differential laximetry was 0.7 mm ± 0.4 (0 to 2 mm) for the ST4 group and 1.6 ± 0.5 mm (0 to 3 mm) for the STG group with a statistically significant difference in favor of the ST4 group (p < 0.05). Age, sex, and presence of meniscal lesions were the factors influencing the KOOS score.
conclusionThis study comparing the clinical and laximetric results at the minimum 3-year follow-up of 2 ACL reconstruction techniques (ST4 vs STG) confirms the working hypothesis with an overall better score for the ST4 group.
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.