Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36186708›Full record

ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2022

No Difference in Knee Kinematics Between Anterior Cruciate Ligament-First and Posterior Cruciate Ligament-First Fixation During Single-Stage Multiligament Knee Reconstruction: A Biomechanical Study.

Aly M Fayed, Ryo Kanto, Taylor M Price, Michael DiNenna, Monica A Linde, Patrick Smolinski, Carola van Eck

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. A scoping review and guide for in vitro healthy human knee joint laxity.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026
    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

7 authors.

Aly M FayedDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Ryo KantoDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Taylor M PriceDepartment of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Michael DiNennaDepartment of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Monica A LindeDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Patrick SmolinskiDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.
Carola van EckDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: For combined reconstruction of both the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL), there is no consensus regarding which graft should be tensioned and fixed first. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine which sequence of graft tensioning and fixation better restores normal knee kinematics. The hypothesis was that ACL-first fixation would more closely restore normal knee kinematics, graft force, and the tibiofemoral orientation in the neutral (resting) position compared with PCL-first fixation. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 15 unpaired human cadaveric knees were examined using a robotic testing system under the following 4 conditions: (1) 89.0-N anterior tibial load at different knee angles; (2) 89.0-N posterior tibial load at different knee angles; (3) combined rotational 7.0-N·m valgus and 5.0-N·m internal rotation load (simulated pivot shift) at 0°, 15°, and 30° of flexion; and (4) 5.0-N·m external rotation load at 0°, 15°, and 30° of flexion. The 4 evaluated knee states were (1) intact ACL and PCL (intact), (2) ACL and PCL deficient (deficient), (3) combined anatomic ACL-PCL reconstruction fixing the ACL first (ACL-first), and (4) combined anatomic ACL-PCL reconstruction fixing the PCL first (PCL-first). A 9.0 mm-diameter quadriceps tendon autograft was used for the ACL graft, tensioned with 40.0 N at 30° of flexion. A 9.5 mm-diameter hamstring tendon autograft (gracilis and semitendinosus, quadrupled loop, and augmented with an additional allograft strand if needed), tensioned with 40.0 N at 90° of flexion, was used for the PCL graft. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between ACL-first and PCL-first fixation regarding knee kinematics. ACL-first fixation restored anterior tibial translation to the intact state at all tested knee angles, while PCL-first fixation showed higher anterior tibial translation than the intact state at 90° of flexion (9.05 ± 3.05 and 5.87 ± 2.40 mm, respectively; Conclusion: There were no differences in knee laxity between ACL-first and PCL-first fixation with the ACL graft fixed at 30° and the PCL graft fixed at 90°. Clinical Relevance: This study showed that there was no evidence to support the use of one tensioning sequence over the other in single-stage multiligament knee reconstruction.

Indexed as

biomechanicskneemultiligamentreconstructionsingle stage

Identifiers

PMID36186708
PMCPMC9523854

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.