Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34455475›Full record

ArticleArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2022

Additional lateral extra-articular tenodesis in revision ACL reconstruction does not influence the outcome of patients with low-grade anterior knee laxity.

Lena Eggeling, T C Drenck, J Frings, M Krause, Alexander Korthaus, Anna Krukenberg, Karl-Heinz Frosch, Ralph Akoto

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Anterolateral corner of knee: Current concepts.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Controversies in ACL revision surgery: Italian expert group consensus and state of the art.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2022
    Review
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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Lena EggelingAsklepios Clinic St. Georg, Lohmühlenstraße 5, 20099, Hamburg, Germany.
T C DrenckDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Sports Traumatology, BG Hospital Hamburg, Bergedorfer Str. 10, 21033, Hamburg, Germany.
J FringsDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
M KrauseDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Alexander KorthausDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Anna KrukenbergDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Karl-Heinz FroschDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, Sports Traumatology, BG Hospital Hamburg, Bergedorfer Str. 10, 21033, Hamburg, Germany.
Ralph AkotoAsklepios Clinic St. Georg, Lohmühlenstraße 5, 20099, Hamburg, Germany. rakoto@me.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5470-4981
Universität Hamburg · DEAsklepios Klinik St. Georg · DEBG Klinikum Hamburg · DEWitten/Herdecke University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThere is limited evidence on the indications of lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) in revision ACLR. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of the LET in patients with revision ACLR with preoperative low-grade anterior knee laxity.

methodsBetween 2013 and 2018, 78 patients who underwent revision ACLR with preoperative low-grade anterior knee laxity [≤ 5 mm side-to-side difference (SSD)] were included in the retrospective cohort study. An additional modified Lemaire tenodesis was performed in 23 patients during revision ACLR and patients were clinically examined with a minimum of 2 years after revision surgery. Postoperative failure of the revision ACLR was defined as SSD in Rolimeter

resultsIn total, failure of the revision ACLR occurred in 11.5% (n = 9) of the cases at a mean follow-up of 28.7 ± 8.8 (24-67) months. Patients with an additional LET and revision ACLR did not show a significantly reduced failure rate (13% vs. 11%) or an improved clinical outcome according to the postoperative functional scores or pain in regards to patients with an isolated revision ACLR (Tegner 5.7 ± 1.3 vs. 5.9 ± 1.5, n.s.; IKDC 77.5 ± 16.2 vs. 80.1 ± 14.9, n.s., Lysholm 81.9 ± 14.2 vs. 83.8 ± 14.5, n.s.; VAS 1.9 ± 2.2 vs. 1.2 ± 1.7, n.s.).

conclusionsAn additional LET in patients with revision ACLR with low-grade anterior knee laxity does not influence patient-related outcomes or failure rates. Subjects with preoperative low-grade anterior knee laxity may not benefit from a LET in revision ACLR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Indexed as

Anterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesAnterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionJoint InstabilityTenodesisHumansKnee JointRetrospective StudiesIndicationLETLow-grade anterior knee instabilityRevision ACLR

Identifiers

PMID34455475
PMCPMC8783865
OpenAlexW3198079992

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.