Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35840726›Full record

ReviewJournal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology2022

Controversies in ACL revision surgery: Italian expert group consensus and state of the art.

Fabrizio Matassi, Niccolò Giabbani, Enrico Arnaldi, Alessandro Tripodo, Giovanni Bonaspetti, Corrado Bait, Mario Ronga, Paolo Di Benedetto, Stefano Zaffagnini, Eugenio Jannelli and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReviewConsensus Statement
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, 2022. 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
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

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

12 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.

Fabrizio MatassiOrthopaedic Clinic CTO, University of Florence, Florence, Italy.
Niccolò GiabbaniOrthopaedic Clinic CTO, University of Florence, Florence, Italy. niccologiabbani@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2646-0622
Enrico ArnaldiCenter of Knee Surgery, Humanitas, Milan, Italy.
Alessandro TripodoSan Camillo Institute, Forte dei Marmi, Lucca, Italy.
Giovanni BonaspettiU.O. Ortopedia e Traumatologia 2, Istituto Clinico Sant'Anna, Brescia, Italy.
Corrado BaitVilla Aprica Institute, Como, Italy.
Mario RongaOrthopaedic and Trauma Operative Unit, Department of BIOMORF, University Hospital G. Martino, University of Messina, Messina, Italy.
Paolo Di BenedettoOrthopaedic Clinic, University Hospital of Udine, Udine, Italy.
Stefano ZaffagniniIRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, Bologna, Italy.
Eugenio JannelliDepartment of Medical and Surgical Specialties and Dentistry, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
Alfredo Schiavone PanniDepartment of Medical and Surgical Specialties and Dentistry, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", Naples, Italy.
Massimo BerrutoUOS Knee SURGERY-1st University Clinic of Orthopaedics, ASST Pini-CTO, Milan, Italy.
University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli" · ITUniversity of Florence · ITHumanitas University · ITIRCCS San Camillo Hospital · ITIstituto Ortopedico Gaetano Pini · ITIstituto Ortopedico Rizzoli · ITOspedale Sant'Anna · ITUniversity of Messina · ITUniversity of Udine · ITVilla Melitta · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRevision ACL reconstruction is a complex topic with many controversies and not-easy-to-make decisions. The authors' aim is to provide some feasible advice that can be applied in daily clinical practice with the goal of facilitating the decision-making process and improving the outcomes of patients subjected to revision ACL reconstruction.

methodsA national survey with seven questions about the most controversial topics in revision ACL reconstruction was emailed to members of two societies: SIOT and SIAGASCOT. The participants' answers were collected, the most recent literature was analyzed, and a consensus was created by the authors, according to their long-term surgical experience.

conclusionsThe decision-making process in revision ACL reconstruction starts with a standardized imaging protocol (weight-bearing radiographs, CT scan, and MRI). One-stage surgery is indicated in almost all cases (exceptions are severe tunnel enlargement and infection), while the choice of graft depends on the previously used graft and the dimensions of the tunnels, with better clinical outcomes obtained for autografts. Additional procedures such as lateral extra-articular tenodesis in high-grade pivot-shift knees, biplanar HTO in the case of severe coronal malalignment, and meniscal suture improve the clinical outcome and should be considered case by case. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V (Expert opinion).

Indexed as

Anterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesAnterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionTenodesisHumansKnee JointReoperationACLR failureAnterior cruciate ligament reconstructionAnterior cruciate ligament revisionConsensusItalian expert groupRevisionSurvey

Identifiers

PMID35840726
PMCPMC9287504
OpenAlexW4285589456

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.