Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33983487›Full record

ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2022

Non-anatomic tunnel position increases the risk of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Kevin J Byrne, Jonathan D Hughes, Christopher Gibbs, Ravi Vaswani, Sean J Meredith, Adam Popchak, Bryson P Lesniak, Jón Karlsson, James J Irrgang, Volker Musahl

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Kevin J ByrneUPMC Freddie Fu Sports Medicine Center Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 3471 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1011, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. byrnekj@upmc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6040-0194
Jonathan D HughesUPMC Freddie Fu Sports Medicine Center Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 3471 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1011, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Christopher GibbsUPMC Freddie Fu Sports Medicine Center Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 3471 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1011, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Ravi VaswaniUPMC Freddie Fu Sports Medicine Center Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 3471 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1011, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Sean J MeredithDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Adam PopchakUPMC Freddie Fu Sports Medicine Center Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 3471 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1011, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Bryson P LesniakUPMC Freddie Fu Sports Medicine Center Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 3471 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1011, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Jón KarlssonDepartment of Orthopaedics, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
James J IrrgangUPMC Freddie Fu Sports Medicine Center Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 3471 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1011, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Volker MusahlUPMC Freddie Fu Sports Medicine Center Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 3471 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1011, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Freddie Mac (United States) · USUniversity of Gothenburg · SEUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAnterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft failure is a complication that may require revision ACL reconstruction (ACL-R). Non-anatomic placement of the femoral tunnel is thought to be a frequent cause of graft failure; however, there is a lack of evidence to support this belief. The purpose of this study was to determine if non-anatomic femoral tunnel placement is associated with increased risk of revision ACL-R.

methodsAfter screening all 315 consecutive patients who underwent primary single-bundle ACL-R by a single senior orthopedic surgeon between January 2012 and January 2017, 58 patients were found to have both strict lateral radiographs and a minimum of 24 months follow-up without revision. From a group of 456 consecutive revision ACL-R, patients were screened for strictly lateral radiographs and 59 patients were included in the revision group. Femoral tunnel placement for each patient was determined using a strict lateral radiograph taken after the primary ACL-R using the quadrant method. The center of the femoral tunnel was measured in both the posterior-anterior (PA) and proximal-distal (PD) dimensions and represented as a percentage of the total distance (normal center of anatomic footprint: PA 25% and PD 29%).

resultsIn the PA dimension, the revision group had significantly more anterior femoral tunnel placement compared with the primary group (38% ± 11% vs. 28% ± 6%, p < 0.01). Among patients who underwent revision; those with non-traumatic chronic failure had statistically significant more anterior femoral tunnel placement than those who experienced traumatic failure (41% ± 13% vs. 35% ± 8%, p < 0.03). In the PD dimension, the revision group had significantly more proximal femoral tunnel placement compared with the primary group (30% ± 9% vs 38% ± 9%, p < 0.01).

conclusionIn this retrospective study of 58 patients with successful primary ACL-R compared with 59 patients with failed ACL-R, anterior and proximal (high) femoral tunnels for ACL-R were shown to be independent risk factors for ACL revision surgery. As revision ACL-R is associated with patient- and economic burden, particular attention should be given to achieving an individualized, anatomic primary ACL-R. Surgeons may reduce the risk of revision ACL-R by placing the center of the femoral tunnel within the anatomic ACL footprint. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Indexed as

Anterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesAnterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionAnterior Cruciate LigamentFemurHumansKnee JointRetrospective StudiesTibiaACLAnatomicAnterior cruciate ligamentArthroscopicFailureReconstructionRevisionTraumaValueValue-based

Identifiers

PMID33983487
OpenAlexW3161671427

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.