Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35344064›Full record

Trial reportArchives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery2023

Clinical results after arthroscopic reconstruction of the posterolateral corner of the knee: A prospective randomized trial comparing two different surgical techniques.

Sebastian Weiss, Matthias Krause, Karl-Heinz Frosch

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. [Posterolateral instability of the knee joint].Orthopadie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sebastian WeissDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0668-981X
Matthias KrauseDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Karl-Heinz FroschDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. unfallchirurgie@uke.de.
Universität Hamburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionArthroscopic reconstruction techniques of the posterolateral corner (PLC) of the knee have been developed in recent years. Reconstruction techniques for higher-grade PLC injuries have not yet been validated in clinical studies. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes of two different techniques and to present results of the first prospective randomized clinical trial of patients to undergo these novel procedures. MATERIALS AND

methods19 patients with Fanelli Type B posterolateral corner injuries and additional posterior cruciate ligament ruptures were included in this prospective study. They were randomly assigned to one of two novel arthroscopic reconstruction techniques, based on open surgeries developed by Arciero (group A) and LaPrade (group B). Follow-up was conducted at 6 and 12 months postoperatively and included clinical examinations for lateral, rotational and posterior stability, range of motion and subjective clinical outcome scores (IKDC Subjective Score, Lysholm Score, Tegner Activity Scale and Numeric Rating Scale for pain).

resultsAt 6 and 12 months postoperative, all patients in both groups presented stable to varus, external rotational and posterior forces, there were no significant differences between the two groups. At 12-month follow-up, group A patients showed significantly higher maximum flexion angles (134.17° ± 3.76° vs. 126.60° ± 4.22°; p = 0.021) compared to patients of group B. Duration of surgery was significantly longer in Group B patients than in group A (121.88 ± 11.63 vs. 165.00 ± 35.65 min; p = 0.003). Posterior drawer (side-to-side difference) remained more reduced in group A (2.50 ± 0.69 mm vs. 3.27 ± 0.92 mm; p = 0.184). Subjective patient outcome scores showed no significant differences between groups (Lysholm Score 83.33 ± 7.79 vs. 86.40 ± 9.21; p = 0.621).

conclusionsThis study indicates sufficient restoration of posterolateral rotational instability, varus instability and posterior drawer after arthroscopic posterolateral corner reconstruction without neurovascular complications. Increased postoperative range of motion and a shorter and less invasive surgical procedure could favor the arthroscopic reconstruction technique according to Arciero over LaPrade's technique in future treatment considerations.

Indexed as

Joint InstabilityKnee InjuriesPosterior Cruciate LigamentHumansKnee JointLysholm Knee ScoreProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeArthroscopyKneePLCPosterior cruciate ligamentPosterolateral cornerReconstruction

Identifiers

PMID35344064
PMCPMC9925553
OpenAlexW4220662078

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.