Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35036450›Full record

ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2022

Do Clinical Outcomes and Failure Rates Differ in Patients With Combined ACL and Grade 2 MCL Tears Versus Isolated ACL Tears?: A Prospective Study With 14-Year Follow-up.

Gian Andrea Lucidi, Piero Agostinone, Alberto Grassi, Stefano Di Paolo, Giacomo Dal Fabbro, Tommaso Bonanzinga, Stefano Zaffagnini

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The value of magnetic resonance imaging in the preoperative diagnosis of tibial plateau fractures: a systematic literature review.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Current trends in the medial side of the knee: not only medial collateral ligament (MCL).Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2024
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Gian Andrea LucidiII Clinica Ortopedica e Traumatologica, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.
Piero AgostinoneII Clinica Ortopedica e Traumatologica, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.
Alberto GrassiII Clinica Ortopedica e Traumatologica, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.
Stefano Di PaoloQUVI, Università Di Bologna, Rimini, Italy.
Giacomo Dal FabbroII Clinica Ortopedica e Traumatologica, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.
Tommaso BonanzingaDepartment of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Pieve Emanuele, Italy.
Stefano ZaffagniniII Clinica Ortopedica e Traumatologica, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.
Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli · ITIstituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITUniversity of Bologna · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA combined injury to the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and medial collateral ligament (MCL) is a common injury pattern encountered during clinical practice. Recent systematic reviews have found no consensus on the optimal method of managing this combined ligament injury pattern, and no long-term studies with modern techniques are available in the literature. PURPOSE: To compare 2 groups of patients who underwent isolated ACL reconstruction in terms of failures and clinical scores at long-term follow-up. In the first group were patients with isolated ACL tears (ACL group), while the second was composed of patients with combined ACL and MCL grade 2 tears (ACL + MCL group). STUDY

designCohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

methodsA total of 57 patients (37 in the ACL group and 20 in the ACL + MCL group) underwent isolated ACL reconstruction with a double-bundle technique between January and December 2005. Patients were contacted for scores on the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective form, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and Tegner activity scale as well as data regarding ipsilateral or contralateral revision ACL surgery. A 2-way analysis of variance for repeated measures was used to statistically assess the differences between the groups.

resultsOverall, 49 patients (86%) completed the survey and were therefore included in the study. The minimum follow-up was 14.6 years (range, 14.1-15.2 years). There was a significant reduction in both groups of all the outcome scores between the intermediate and final-follow-up. The number of failures was 3 of 31 (9.7%) in the ACL group and 1 of 18 (5.5%) in the ACL + MCL group; this difference was not significant. Moreover, there were no clinical differences between the groups in terms of graft failures, contralateral lesions, and clinical scores.

conclusionAt 14-year follow-up, no clinical difference or increased failure rate was observed between the study groups, suggesting that isolated ACL reconstruction could represent an appropriate treatment for a combined ACL and MCL grade 2 lesion.

Indexed as

anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)combined injury conservative treatmentfailurelong-termmedial collateral ligament (MCL)PROMTelos

Identifiers

PMID35036450
PMCPMC8753244
OpenAlexW4205243707

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.