Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35122109›Full record

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

A new remnant preservation technique reduces bone tunnel enlargement after anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Suguru Koyama, Keiji Tensho, Hiroki Shimodaira, Tomoya Iwaasa, Daiki Kumaki, Hiroshi Horiuchi, Naoto Saito, Jun Takahashi

Open access · greenAbstract 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 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
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Suguru KoyamaDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Shinshu University School of Medicine, 3-26-1, Asahi, Matsumoto, Nagano, 390-8621, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7744-3967
Keiji TenshoDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Shinshu University School of Medicine, 3-26-1, Asahi, Matsumoto, Nagano, 390-8621, Japan. kten@shinshu-u.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1146-3476
Hiroki ShimodairaDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Shinshu University School of Medicine, 3-26-1, Asahi, Matsumoto, Nagano, 390-8621, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3280-6370
Tomoya IwaasaDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Shinshu University School of Medicine, 3-26-1, Asahi, Matsumoto, Nagano, 390-8621, Japan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0560-1457
Daiki KumakiDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Shinshu University School of Medicine, 3-26-1, Asahi, Matsumoto, Nagano, 390-8621, Japan.
Hiroshi HoriuchiDepartment of Rehabilitation, Shinshu University Hospital, 3-26-1, Asahi, Matsumoto, Nagano, 390-8621, Japan.
Naoto SaitoInstitute for Biomedical Sciences, Shinshu University School of Medicine, 3-26-1, Asahi, Matsumoto, Nagano, 390-8621, Japan.
Jun TakahashiDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Shinshu University School of Medicine, 3-26-1, Asahi, Matsumoto, Nagano, 390-8621, Japan.
Shinshu University · JPShinshu University Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo investigate the effect of a new remnant preservation technique with a focus on remnant continuity on postoperative femoral and tibial tunnel enlargement after anatomical double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).

methodsA total of 150 knees were divided into three groups: Preservation Group (Group P: 49 knees), wherein the remnant continuity remained after tunnel creation; Resection Group (Group R: 47 knees), wherein the remaining remnant was resected, and Absent Group (Group A: 54 knees), wherein the remnant had no femoral attachment before tunnel creation. In Group P, the remnant maintained continuity, and the anteromedial (AM) and posterolateral (PL) bundles were positioned anterior and posterior to the remnant, respectively. Computed tomographic scans were performed at 1 week and 1 year after surgery, and the cross-sectional area of each tunnel aperture was measured. Tunnel enlargement was compared among the three groups by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Bonferroni test. Univariate and multivariate logistic analyses were performed to identify the risk factors for tunnel enlargement in demographic and radiographic data.

resultFor femoral AM tunnels, the tunnel enlargement of Group P was significantly smaller than Groups R and A (p < 0.001), femoral PL (p < 0.001 vs. R and A), tibial AM (p < 0.001 vs. R, 0.002 vs. A), and tibial PL (p < 0.001 vs. R, 0.002 vs. A). There was no significant difference between Groups R and A. Multivariate logistic analysis showed that remnant preservation was a significant factor in reducing tunnel enlargement in the femoral AM, femoral PL, tibial AM, and tibial PL.

conclusionThe new remnant-preserving anatomical double-bundle ACLR, which preserves the continuity of the remnant, prevented all bone tunnel enlargement at 1 year postoperatively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Indexed as

Anterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesAnterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionFemurHumansKnee JointTibiaTomography, X-Ray ComputedAnterior cruciate ligament reconstructionRemnant continuityRemnant preservationTunnel enlargement

Identifiers

PMID35122109
OpenAlexW4210689814

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.