Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33380955›Full record

ArticleHSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery2020

ACL Reconstruction Graft Angle and Outcomes: Transtibial vs Anteromedial Reconstruction.

Austin V Stone, Jorge Chahla, Brandon J Manderle, Alexander Beletsky, Charles A Bush-Joseph, Nikhil N Verma

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in HSS journal : the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Austin V StoneDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY USA.
Jorge ChahlaDivision of Sports Medicine, Midwest Orthopaedics at Rush, Rush University Medical Center, 1611 W Harrison St., Chicago, IL 60616 USA.
Brandon J ManderleDivision of Sports Medicine, Midwest Orthopaedics at Rush, Rush University Medical Center, 1611 W Harrison St., Chicago, IL 60616 USA.
Alexander BeletskyDivision of Sports Medicine, Midwest Orthopaedics at Rush, Rush University Medical Center, 1611 W Harrison St., Chicago, IL 60616 USA.
Charles A Bush-JosephDivision of Sports Medicine, Midwest Orthopaedics at Rush, Rush University Medical Center, 1611 W Harrison St., Chicago, IL 60616 USA.
Nikhil N VermaDivision of Sports Medicine, Midwest Orthopaedics at Rush, Rush University Medical Center, 1611 W Harrison St., Chicago, IL 60616 USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9875-2769
Rush University Medical Center · USUniversity of Kentucky · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe importance of creating an anatomic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has been receiving significant attention. The best technique by which to achieve this anatomic reconstruction continues to be debated. The two most common methods are the transtibial (TT) and anteromedial (AM) techniques. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, and the literature comparing the two remains uncertain. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this prospective comparative study, we aimed to compare the ACL graft and tunnel angles achieved using the anatomic transtibial (TT) and anteromedial (AM) techniques; compare the ACL graft and tunnel angles in knees that have undergone ACL reconstruction and knees with intact ACLs; and determine whether differences in the graft or tunnel angle produce differences in clinical outcomes, as measured using both physical exam and patient-reported outcomes, after ACL reconstruction.

methodsPatients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction with bone-tendon-bone grafts using a TT or AM technique were included. Femoral graft angle (FGA), tibial graft angle (TGA), and sagittal orientation of the reconstructed ACL and contralateral native ACL were measured on post-operative magnetic resonance imaging. Post-operatively, patients underwent measurement of knee stability and completed the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) survey.

resultsTwenty-nine patients were enrolled (AM group, 14; TT group, 15); at follow-up, KOOS data were available for 26 patients (13 in each group). There were no differences in sagittal ACL graft angle between groups or in comparison with the normal knee. The FGA was more vertical after TT reconstructions; the TGA was comparable between groups. There were no significant differences in 2-year post-operative physical exam measurements or in KOOS scores.

conclusionAnatomic ACL angle was restored after reconstruction with both the TT and AM techniques, despite different FGAs. No significant differences in clinical outcome were noted between groups on physical exam or KOOS at 2 years after surgery. These results suggest that TT reconstruction results in a graft position similar to that seen in AM reconstruction and that the location of the intra-articular tunnel aperture matters more than the orientation of the tunnel.

Indexed as

anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniqueanteromedial reconstructiongraft angletranstibial reconstructiontunnel angle

Identifiers

PMID33380955
PMCPMC7749890
OpenAlexW2968143791

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.