ArticleJSES international2022
Effect of difference in fixation methods of tendon graft and the microfracture procedure on tendon-bone junction healing.
Article in JSES international, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Didymin may Enhance Tendon-Bone Healing Partly by Promoting PPAR-Mediated Fatty Acid Oxidation and Macrophage M2 Polarization.Immunity, inflammation and disease · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are generally two methods of fixation for tendon grafts used in ligament reconstruction: bone tunnel fixation and anchor fixation. The microfracture (Mf) procedure is a technique to induce bleeding from the bone marrow, and the bleeding may contain cells with differentiation potential. However, few studies have compared the effects of the Mf procedure with those of the fixation methods. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the Mf procedure on two tendon graft fixation methods: histological, gene expression, tendon graft thickness, and mechanical. We especially focused our investigation on junction healing of tendon grafts and bone in the two fixation methods.
methodsWe used 20 rabbits to evaluate tendon and bone healing in a peroneal tendon graft model. The rabbit models were divided into five groups according to the combination of peroneal tendon graft fixation method and Mf technique as follows: control group (C, n = 4), bone tunnel fixation without Mf procedure group (BT - Mf, n = 4), bone tunnel fixation with Mf procedure group (BT + Mf, n = 4), anchor fixation without Mf procedure group (A - Mf, n = 4), and anchor fixation with Mf procedure group (A + Mf, n = 4). All animals were sacrificed at 4 weeks postoperatively. The specimens underwent histological evaluation, mRNA analysis, tendon graft thickness at the tendon-bone junction, and biomechanical testing.
resultsHistological evaluation of the BT + Mf and A + Mf groups showed healing with fibrocartilage formation at the tendon graft-bone junction. The mRNA expression showed significant increase in type 2 collagen, Scleraxis, and SRY-box9 in the BT + Mf and A + Mf groups. In biomechanical tests, the BT + Mf and A + Mf groups showed significantly increased tensile strength compared with the BT - Mf and A - Mf groups (BT + Mf group, 21.6 ± 1.7 N; A + Mf group, 22.5 ± 2.3 N vs. BT - Mf group, 12.3 ± 2.4 N; A - Mf group, 11 ± 2.3 N).
conclusionThe Mf procedure resulted in fibrocartilage formation at the tendon-bone junction in the BT and anchor fixation and improved the fixation strength at 4 weeks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.