ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2020
The Accessory Medial Portal for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Safe Zone to Avoid Neurovascular Complications.
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 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.
- CAN SENSORY DISTURBANCES DUE TO INJURY TO THE INFRAPATELLAR BRANCH OF THE SAPHENOUS NERVE BE PREVENTED BY AN OBLIQUE INCISION?Acta ortopedica brasileira · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe accessory medial portal (AMP) used for anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is gaining popularity. This portal is routinely created at 60° of knee flexion, placing the infrapatellar branch of the saphenous nerve (IBSN) and, less commonly, the descending and superior medial genicular arteries at risk. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to identify a safe zone for AMP placement in ACLR to minimize the risk of injury to the IBSN. We hypothesized that increased knee flexion angles would decrease the risk to neurovascular structures when creating an AMP. STUDY
designDescriptive laboratory study.
methodsA total of 20 cadaveric (10 matched pairs) knees were used for dissection to identify the IBSN and other neurovascular structures. A 30° arthroscope was used to make the central medial portal and AMP at 3 knee flexion angles (60°, 90°, and 110°). Distances were measured from the AMP to branches of the IBSN. Safety of AMP placement was analyzed by assessing the frequency at which spinal needles pierced a neurovascular structure or violated a safe zone.
resultsThe superior IBSN was significantly closer to the AMP than inferior IBSN. The AMP was significantly farther from the superior IBSN at 110° (8.56 ± 5.28 mm) compared with 60° (5.63 ± 5.00 mm;
conclusionThe superior IBSN is at risk for iatrogenic injury with an AMP placed at 60° of knee flexion. The nerve moved distally with knee flexion. While no neurovascular structures were compromised at 90° of knee flexion, the nerve was found to course through the safe zone. A safe zone at 110° of knee flexion decreases the risk of neurovascular injury and makes the AMP safe for ACLR. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The AMP at 60° of knee flexion for ACLR poses risk to the IBSN. The IBSN did violate the safe zone at 90° of flexion. We recommend creating an AMP with increased knee flexion to 110° to decrease the risk of iatrogenic injury. When establishing an AMP, one should aim for the center of the defined safe zone, given that the spinal needle used in this study has a smaller diameter than a stab incision.
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.