Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35264676›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2022

Single versus double bundle in posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction: a meta-analysis.

Filippo Migliorini, Andrea Pintore, Filippo Spiezia, Francesco Oliva, Frank Hildebrand, Nicola Maffulli

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Filippo MiglioriniDepartment of Orthopaedic, Trauma, and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, 52074, Aachen, Germany. migliorini.md@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-7220-1221
Andrea PintoreDepartment of Orthopaedics, Surgery and Dentistry, University of Salerno, 84081, Baronissi, SA, Italy.
Filippo SpieziaDepartment of Orthopedic and Trauma Surgery, Ospedale San Carlo, Potenza, Italy.
Francesco OlivaDepartment of Orthopaedics, Surgery and Dentistry, University of Salerno, 84081, Baronissi, SA, Italy.
Frank HildebrandDepartment of Orthopaedic, Trauma, and Reconstructive Surgery, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, 52074, Aachen, Germany.
Nicola MaffulliDepartment of Orthopaedics, Surgery and Dentistry, University of Salerno, 84081, Baronissi, SA, Italy.
University of Salerno · ITRWTH Aachen University · DEOspedale San Carlo · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction can be performed using single bundle (SB) and double bundle (DB) techniques. The present study investigated whether DB PCL reconstruction is superior to SB reconstruction in terms of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and joint stability. In December 2021 Embase, Google Scholar, Pubmed, Scopus databases were accessed. All clinical trials comparing SB versus DB reconstruction to address PCL insufficiency in skeletally mature patients were considered. Data from 483 procedures were retrieved. The mean follow-up was 31.0 (28.0 to 107.6) months, and the mean timespan between injury and surgery was 11.3 (6 to 37) months. The mean age of the patients was 29.3 ± 3.8 years. 85 of 483 patients (18%) were women. At a mean of 31.0 months post reconstruction, ROM (P = 0.03) was slightly greater in the SB group, while the Tegner score (P = 0.03) and the Telos stress (P = 0.04) were more favorable in the DB cohort. Similarity was found in instrumental laxity (P = 0.4) and Lysholm score (P = 0.3). The current evidence does not support the use of DB techniques for PCL reconstruction. Both methods could restore knee stability and motion with satisfactory short term patient reported outcome measures. Further high quality clinical trials are required to validate these results on a larger scale.

Indexed as

Anterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesPosterior Cruciate LigamentPosterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionAdultFemaleHumansKnee JointMaleTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID35264676
PMCPMC8907238
OpenAlexW4221117275

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.