Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32685564›Full record

ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2020

Patient-Reported and Quantitative Outcomes of Anatomic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Hamstring Tendon Autografts.

Theresa Diermeier, Sean J Meredith, James J Irrgang, Stefano Zaffagnini, Ryosuke Kuroda, Yuichi Hochino, Kristian Samuelsson, Clair Nicole Smith, Adam Popchak, Volker Musahl and 33 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. A high level of knee laxity after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction results in high revision rates.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

43 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Theresa DiermeierInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Sean J MeredithInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
James J IrrgangInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Stefano ZaffagniniInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Ryosuke KurodaInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Yuichi HochinoInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Kristian SamuelssonInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Clair Nicole SmithInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Adam PopchakInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Volker MusahlInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
PIVOT Study Group
Andrew SheeanInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Jeremy M BurnhamInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Jayson LianInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Clair SmithInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Adam PopchakInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Elmar HerbstInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Thomas PfeifferInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Paulo AraujoInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Alicia OostdykInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Daniel GuentherInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Bruno OhashiInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
James J IrrgangInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Freddie H FuInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Kouki NagamuneInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Masahiro KurosakaInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Ryosuke KurodaInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Yuichi HochinoInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Alberto GrassiInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Giulio Maria Marcheggiani MuccioliInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Nicola LopomoInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Cecilia SignorelliInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Federico RaggiInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Stefano ZaffagniniInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Alexandra HorvathInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Eleonor SvantessonInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Eric Hamrin SenorskiInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
David SundemoInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Haukur BjoernssonInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Mattias AhldenInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Neel DesaiInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Kristian SamuelssonInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Jon KarlssonInvestigation performed at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
University of Pittsburgh · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe pivot-shift test has become more consistent and reliable and is a meaningful outcome measurement after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this investigation was to assess patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and the quantitative pivot shift (QPS) preoperatively, at time zero immediately after anatomic ACLR, and after 24 months as well as the relationship between PROs and the QPS. It was hypothesized that anatomic ACLR would restore rotatory stability measured by the pivot-shift test and that QPS measurements would be positively correlated with PROs. STUDY

designCohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

methodsThe ACL-injured and contralateral uninjured knees from 89 of 107 (83.2%) enrolled patients at 4 international centers were evaluated using a standardized pivot-shift test. Tibial acceleration was assessed with an inertial sensor, and lateral compartment translation was measured using an image analysis system preoperatively, at time zero immediately postoperatively, and at follow-up after 2 years. PROs were assessed at 12 and 24 months postoperatively with the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee form, Cincinnati Knee Rating System (CKRS), Marx activity rating scale, and activity of daily living score (ADLS).

resultsThe mean patient age at surgery was 27 years (range, 15-45 years). A positive pivot shift preoperatively (side-to-side difference in tibial acceleration, 2.6 ± 4.0 m/s

conclusionAnatomic ACLR resulted in significantly improved and acceptable PROs at 2-year follow-up and a low failure rate. Anatomic ACLR restored QPS measurements of anterior tibial translation and tibial acceleration to those of the contralateral knee immediately after surgery while still under anesthesia, but there was no correlation between the QPS preoperatively or at time zero after ACLR and PROs at 2-year follow-up.

Indexed as

accelerationACLanterior cruciate ligamentimage analysisinertial sensorpivot shiftrotatory knee instabilitytranslation

Identifiers

PMID32685564
PMCPMC7343370
OpenAlexW3041493965

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.