Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35321208›Full record

ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2022

Flexible Versus Rigid Reaming Systems for Independent Femoral Tunnel Reaming During ACL Reconstruction: Minimum 2-Year Clinical Outcomes.

Thomas E Moran, Anthony J Ignozzi, Eric R Taleghani, Amelia S Bruce, Joseph M Hart, Brian C Werner

Abstract 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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Thomas E MoranDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
Anthony J IgnozziDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
Eric R TaleghaniDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
Amelia S BruceDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
Joseph M HartDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
Brian C WernerDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Radiographic and cadaveric studies have suggested that anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) femoral tunnel drilling with the use of a flexible reaming system through an anteromedial portal (AM-FR) may result in a different graft and femoral tunnel position compared with using a rigid reamer through an accessory anteromedial portal with hyperflexion (AAM-RR). No prior studies have directly compared clinical outcomes between the use of these 2 techniques for femoral tunnel creation during ACLR. Purpose: To compare revision rates at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively for patients who underwent ACLR with AM-FR versus AAM-RR. The secondary objectives were to compare functional testing and patient-reported outcomes between the cohorts. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Included were consecutive patients at a single academic institution between 2013 and 2018 who underwent primary ACLR without additional ligamentous reconstruction. Patients were separated into 2 groups based on the type of anatomic femoral tunnel drilling: AM-FR or AAM-RR. Graft failure, determined by revision ACLR, was assessed with a minimum 2 years of postoperative follow-up. The authors also compared patient-reported outcome scores (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS]) and functional performance testing performed at 6 months postoperatively. Results: A total of 284 (AAM-RR, 232; AM-FR, 52) patients were included. The mean follow-up time was 3.7 ± 1.5 years, with a minimum 2-year follow-up rate of 90%. There was no significant difference in the rate of revision ACLR between the AAM-RR and AM-FR groups (10.8% vs 9.6%, respectively; Conclusion: In this limited study, independent femoral tunnel drilling for ACLR using rigid or flexible reaming systems resulted in comparable rates of revision ACLR at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively, with no significant differences in strength assessments or patient-reported outcomes at 6 months postoperatively.

Indexed as

anterior cruciate ligamentfemoral tunnelflexible reamingligament reconstructionrigid reaming; revision ACLR

Identifiers

PMID35321208
PMCPMC8935574

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.