ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2021
Clinical study of anatomical ACL reconstruction using a rounded rectangular dilator.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- No single best technique: trade-offs in femoral interference screw fixation for bone-patellar tendon-bone anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.EFORT open reviews · 2026Review
- Increased ACL direct insertion coverage provided more positive biomechanical effects on graft and bone tunnel during knee flexion: a simulation study.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2023Article
- Tibial graft fixation methods and bone tunnel enlargement: A comparison between the TensionLoc implant system and the double-spike plate.Asia-Pacific journal of sports medicine, arthroscopy, rehabilitation and technology · 2022Article
- Single-Tunnel Double-Bundle-Like Effect With Footprint Enhancing Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.Arthroscopy techniques · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was that to compare clinical results between the rounded rectangular femoral tunnel ACL reconstruction (RFTR) and the conventional round femoral tunnel ACL reconstruction using a hamstring tendon. The hypothesis was that ACL reconstruction performed using the rounded rectangular dilator technique was better than that performed using the conventional round femoral tunnel technique in terms of clinical results and bone tunnel enlargement.
methodsWe conducted retrospective study. After exclusions, 40 patients were included in the conventional anatomical single-bundle ACL reconstruction (ASBR) group and 40 patients were included in the RFTR group. The evaluation items were knee stability, Lysholm knee score, IKDC subjective score at 2 years after surgery and bone tunnel enlargement.
resultsThe RFTR group had a larger femoral tunnel area (average area, 53.1 ± 4.0 mm
conclusionsWe designed and developed an original rounded rectangular dilator to perform a novel ACL surgery. This technique can create a larger bone tunnel and improve clinical results than the conventional round anatomical single-bundle ACL reconstruction.
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.