ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2022
Outcomes of retro-drilled all-inside tibial tunnel vs complete tibial tunnel techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction-a comparative study.
Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07023653 (Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between All-Inside and Complete Tibial Tunnel Techniques in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Among Patients With ACL Ruptures), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 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.
Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between All-Inside and Complete Tibial Tunnel Techniques in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Among Patients With ACL Ruptures
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- All-inside versus complete tibial tunnel techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research · 2023Pooled it
- A Simplified Technique for All-Inside Tibial Socket Retrograde Drill Guiding Using a 2- to 3.5-mm Concentric Cannula Without the All-Inside Tibial Guide Ring.Arthroscopy techniques · 2025Article
- Tensile Strength of the Achilles Tendon Allograft: A Comparative Study of Graft Preparation Technique.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Utilizing Double Adjustable-Loop Suspensory Fixation Devices Provides Good Clinical Outcomes in Patients under the Age of 40 Years at Two-Year Follow-Up.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Comparison of the Clinical Outcomes between All-inside and Standard Technique in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with 6-strand Hamstring Tendon Autograft.Orthopaedic surgery · 2024Article
- A Surgical Technique for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Semitendinosus Graft: An All-Inside Transfemoral Approach.Arthroscopy techniques · 2023Article
- All-Inside Tibial Tunnel Drilling: How to Calculate a Safe Drilling Length to Avoid Anterior Cortex Violation.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe all-inside tibial tunnel preparation technique of arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction differs from traditional complete tibial tunnel technique in using closed tibial sockets, dual-cortical suspensory graft-fixation, quadrupled semitendinosus tendon graft and lesser bone removal. The study aims to find out if all-inside technique differs from complete tibial tunnel technique of single bundle ACL reconstruction in terms of graft dimensions, functional and clinical outcomes.
methodsA prospective comparative study was conducted including 80 patients with isolated ACL tears, divided into 2 groups of 40 patients each without any randomization. The two techniques differed in tibial tunnel preparation. Group 1 underwent ACL reconstruction with a complete tibial tunnel drilled from the anteromedial tibial cortex and group 2 underwent all-inside tibial socket preparation. Duration of the surgery, perioperative and midterm complications were noted. All patients had 24 month follow-up. Functional outcome scores (Tegner-Lysholm knee scoring scale and IKDC score) were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 months and 24 months. Hamstring and quadriceps muscle strength was assessed preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 months, 9 months and 24 months. Visual analogue score (VAS) for knee pain was assessed preoperatively and postoperatively at day 2, 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 6 months and 24 months.
resultsQuadrupled semitendinosus tendon graft was significantly thicker than doubled semitendinosus and gracilis tendons graft (8.17 ± 0.58 vs 8.71 ± 0.4, p < 0.0001). The VAS score for knee pain at 2 and 6 weeks were lower in group 2 (5.75 ± 0.6 and 1.78 ± 1.0) as compared to group 1 (6.50 ± 0.5 and 2.5 ± 0.8) and the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.0007 and p = 0.002 respectively). There were no statistically significant differences in functional outcome scores and quadriceps muscle strength between the two groups. However, there were significant difference in hamstring power in two groups.
conclusionThe all-inside technique has the advantages of using a single tendon graft, lesser early postoperative pain with similar clinical and functional outcomes compared to the complete tibial tunnel technique. Level of Evidence IIProspective comparative study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34028623What 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.