ArticleActa orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica2022
Clinical outcomes of single-bundle versus double-bundle ACL reconstruction in adolescent elite athletes: A retrospective comparative study.
Article in Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Article
- Anatomical Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Suture Augmentation.Arthroscopy techniques · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of the study was to evaluate the single bundle (SB) and double bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in terms of graft survival, complications, and patient reported functional outcomes in adolescent athletes.
methodsIn this retrospective study, 89 elite adolescent athletes who underwent either SB or DB ACL reconstruction were included. All patients were then divided into two groups: group 1 including 51 patients with SB ACL reconstruction (31 male, 20 female; mean age = 15.4 ± 1.03 years) and group 2 including 38 patients with DB ACL (30 male, 8 female; mean age = 15.7 ± 1.3 years). Clinical data were obtained, comprising skeletal maturity, sports type, ACL reconstruction technique, Lachman scores, KT-1000™ arthrometer measurement, additional meniscal procedures as well as International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Cincinnati score, and graft size.
resultsThe mean follow-up period was 53.1 ± 8.6 months in group 1 and 46.4± 9.1 months in group 2 (P = 0.61). The type of ACL reconstruction technique (SB or DB), gender, skeletal maturity, sports type, additional meniscal procedures and Lachman scores were not associated with the re-rupture of the ACL (P > 0.05). Moreover, ACL reconstruction technique did not effect the rate of re-rupture of an ACL. There were 21 re-ruptures (23.5%) and 11 (12.3%) contralateral ACL ruptures in total. Among 21 reruptures, 12 of them were in the DB group while nine of them in the SB group (P > 0.05). The groups did not differ with respect to age, the injured side, the time from injury to surgery, the postoperative follow-up time, or the preoperative physical examination results KT-1000 device (SSD), Cincinnati score, IKDC objective and subjective score,Lachman test and pivot-shift test).
conclusionThere are no differences in the re-rupture of an ACL, patient reported outcomes, and complications in adolescent elite players, when either an SB or DB technique is performed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Therapeuthic Study.
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.