ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2021
Comparable Clinical and Radiologic Outcomes Between an Anatomic Tunnel and a Low Tibial Tunnel in Remnant-Preserving Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.
Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Good clinical and radiological results following remnant-preserving posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2023Pooled it
- Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Elite Athletes: A Narrative Review.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2026Review
- What Is the Optimal Position of Low Tibial Tunnel in Transtibial Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction? A Quantitative Analysis Based on 2D CT Images and 3D Knee Models.Orthopaedic surgery · 2025Article
- Application of CT-MRI Fusion-Based Three-Dimensional Reconstruction Technique in the Anatomic Study of Posterior Cruciate Ligament.Orthopaedic surgery · 2022Article
- Single-Bundle Anatomical Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Remnant Preservation.Arthroscopy techniques · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is currently no consensus on the optimal placement of the tibial tunnel for remnant-preserving posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction using anatomic versus low tibial tunnels. We hypothesized that the outcomes of low tibial tunnel placement would be superior to those of anatomic tibial tunnel placement at the 2-year follow-up after remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction. STUDY
designCohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the data for patients who underwent remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction between March 2011 and January 2018 with a minimum follow-up of 2 years (N = 63). On the basis of the tibial tunnel position on postoperative computed tomography, the patients were divided into those with anatomic placement (group A; n = 31) and those with low tunnel placement (group L; n = 32). Clinical scores (International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score, Lysholm score, and Tegner activity level), range of motion, complications, and stability test outcomes at follow-up were compared between the 2 groups. Graft signal on 1-year follow-up magnetic resonance imaging scans was compared between 22 patients in group A and 17 patients in group L.
resultsThere were no significant differences between groups regarding clinical scores or incidence of complications, no between-group differences in posterior drawer test results, and no side-to-side difference on Telos stress radiographs (5.2 ± 2.9 mm in group A vs 5.1 ± 2.8 mm in group L;
conclusionThe clinical and radiologic outcomes and complication rate were comparable between anatomic tunnel placement and low tibial tunnel placement at 2-year follow-up after remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction. The findings of this study suggest that both tibial tunnel positions are clinically feasible for remnant-preserving PCL 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.