ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2022
Safe femoral condyle range for the reverse Rigidfix femoral fixation device in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
Article in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo determine the characteristics of cross-pin protrusion in patients treated with the reverse Rigidfix femoral fixation device for femoral tunnel preparation through the anteromedial portal in Arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), analyse the reasons for this outcome, and identify safety hazards of this surgical technique for improvement.
methodsA retrospective analysis of patients who underwent ACLR using this technology at our hospital in 2018 was conducted. Patients with and without cross-pin protrusion were included in the protrusion positive and negative groups, respectively. The sex, age and imaging characteristics of the patients with cross-pin protrusion were identified, and the reasons for cross-pin protrusion were analysed.
resultsThere were 64 and 212 patients in the protrusion positive and negative groups, respectively. The proportion of cross-pin protrusion cases was 23.19% (64/276). There was a significant difference in the ratio of males to females (P < 0.001, χ2 = 185.184), the mediolateral femoral condyle diameter (protrusion positive group, 70.59 ± 2.51 mm; protrusion negative group, 82.65 ± 4.16 mm; P < 0.001, t = 28.424), and the anteroposterior diameter of the lateral femoral condyle (protrusion positive group, 58.34 ± 2.89 mm; protrusion negative group, 66.38 ± 3.53 mm; P < 0.001, t = 16.615). The cross-pins did not penetrate the lateral femoral condyle cortex in patients with a mediolateral femoral condyle diameter ≥ 76 mm, but the cross-pins definitely penetrated the cortex when the diameter was ≤ 70 mm. The cross-pins did not penetrate when the anteroposterior lateral femoral condyle diameter was ≥ 66 mm, but the cross-pins definitely penetrated it when the diameter was ≤ 59 mm.
conclusionThe patients with cross-pin protrusion after reverse Rigidfix femoral fixation treatment to prepare the femoral tunnel through the anteromedial portal in ACLR were mainly females with small femoral condyles. For patients with a mediolateral femoral condyle diameter ≥ 76 mm and an anteroposterior lateral femoral condyle diameter ≥ 66 mm, there is no risk of cross-pin protrusion, so this technique can be used with confidence. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: III.
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.