Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36111464›Full record

ArticleZhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery2022

[Core techniques and adverse events in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a new generation of artificial ligaments: the consensus of Chinese specialists based on a modified Delphi method (Part 2)].

Chinese Specialist Consensus Group On New Generation Artificial Ligaments Used For Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Open access · greenAbstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

1 author.

Chinese Specialist Consensus Group On New Generation Artificial Ligaments Used For Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using a new generation of artificial ligaments (NGAL) gained popularity in China owing to its good effectiveness and early functional recovery, but iatrogenic surgical failures and preconceived misconceptions have seriously affected its standardized clinical application. A specialist consensus is now developed to provide guidance and reference for orthopaedic sports medicine doctors when adopting or considering the NGAL for ACL reconstruction. Methods: The consensus on the core techniques and adverse events in ACL reconstruction using the NGAL was developed by a modified Delphi method, referring exclusively to the NGAL for ACL reconstruction approved by the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA). Consensus specialists were selected from the members of the Chinese Association of Orthopaedic Surgeons (CAOS) and the Chinese Society of Sports Medicine (CSSM). The drafting team summarized the draft consensus terms based on medical evidence and organized rounds of investigation: two rounds of online questionnaire investigation and the final round of face-to-face meeting. After discussion, revision, and voting, a consensus on the draft consensus term was reached when the agreement rate exceeded 85%. The consensus terms were categorized as "strong" (agreement rate: 95.0%-100%), "moderate" (agreement rate: 90.0%-94.9%), and "basic" (agreement rate: 85.0%-89.9%). Results: Thirty-one specialists completed the questionnaire investigation. They all practiced in university teaching hospitals (Grade-A tertiary hospitals) from 16 provinces, autonomous regions, and municipalities in China. Among them, 28 were chief physicians and 3 were associate chief physicians; 22 were professors and 7 were associate professors; the average seniority in orthopedic sports medicine was 25.2 years (range, 12-40 years); the average seniority in performing ACL reconstruction procedures was 13.2 years (range, 7-23 years); in terms of the number of ACL reconstruction using the NGAL, 18 completed more than 100 cases, of which 6 had more than 300 cases; in terms of research, 28 had published more than 1 related paper in the past 5 years, of which 13 had published more than 3 related papers. Twenty-six specialists attended the face-to-face meeting and reached a consensus on 9 terms, including 8 strong terms and 1 moderate term. Conclusion: ACL reconstruction using the NGAL must deploy "isometric" or "near-isometric" reconstruction and should preserve the natural ACL remnants as much as possible. Bone tunnel positioning can be performed using intraoperative radiographic measurements or the lateral femoral intercondylar ridge as reference marks. Incorrect positioning of the bone tunnel is the main reason of surgical failure, and there is a lack of consensus on handling interference screws during revision. Bone tunnel enlargement exists after reconstruction but rarely causes related symptoms. Synovitis and infection are uncommon complications. The aging effect of polyethylene terephthalate fiber on the long-term clinical outcomes is unknown and deserves attention.

Indexed as

Anterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionPolyethylene TerephthalatesAnterior Cruciate LigamentDelphi TechniqueHumansPolyethylene Terephthalatesadverse eventsanterior cruciate ligament reconstructionArtificial ligamentChinese specialistsconsensuscore techniques

Identifiers

PMID36111464
PMCPMC9626301
OpenAlexW4296026006

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.