Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36463165›Full record

Trial reportBMC musculoskeletal disorders2022

Comparison of proprioception recovery following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using an artificial graft versus an autograft.

Changli Xu, Tianze Liu, Miao Wang, Chang Liu, Bo Li, Qiujian Lian, Tongjiang Chen, Fengmei Chen, Suchi Qiao, Zhiwei Wang

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC musculoskeletal disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Knee proprioception following anterior cruciate ligament repair and reconstruction: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.Asia-Pacific journal of sports medicine, arthroscopy, rehabilitation and technology · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Changli Xu *Department of Orthopedics, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, People's Republic of China.
Tianze Liu *Department of Orthopedics, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, People's Republic of China.
Miao Wang *Department of Orthopedics, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, People's Republic of China.
Chang LiuDepartment of Orthopedics, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, People's Republic of China.
Bo LiDepartment of Orthopedics, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, People's Republic of China.
Qiujian LianDepartment of Orthopedics, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, People's Republic of China.
Tongjiang ChenDepartment of Orthopedics, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, People's Republic of China.
Fengmei ChenDepartment of Orthopedics, The Third Affiliated to the Naval Military Medical University, Shanghai, 201805, People's Republic of China. cfm5e111@126.com.
Suchi QiaoDepartment of Orthopedics, The Third Affiliated to the Naval Military Medical University, Shanghai, 201805, People's Republic of China. su-chi@163.com.
Zhiwei WangDepartment of Orthopedics, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, 200433, People's Republic of China. wang123@smmu.edu.cn.
Second Military Medical University · CNChanghai Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo compare proprioception recovery after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with a hamstring tendon autograft versus the artificial Ligament Advanced Reinforcement System (LARS). MATERIAL AND

methodsForty patients (9 females, 31 males) with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture were enrolled in this prospective study. Patients were randomized to two groups, 1) ACLR using a hamstring tendon autograft (n = 20) or 2) ACLR using artificial LARS (n = 20). Proprioception was assessed with knee joint position sense (JPS) passive-passive test at 45° and 75° flexions, with the contralateral healthy knee as a control baseline to calculate the JPS error. Knee JPS absolute error was used as the main outcome variable and defined as the absolute difference between the reproduction and target angles.

resultsJPS error in both groups at 3 months after ACLR was significantly higher than that at 12 months. However, no significant difference in JPS error was detected between the LARS and autograft groups at either 3 or 12 months after ACLR. Analyzing JPS data by grouping patients according to whether ACLR was performed more or less than 1 year following injury regardless of graft type showed a statistically significant difference between the groups at 3 months, but not at 12 months, after ACLR. Patients receiving the graft within 1 year of injury had a lower JPS error than those receiving the graft more than 1 year after injury at 3 months. No complications were associated with either ACLR method.

conclusionACLR with a hamstring tendon autograft or LARS artificial graft is similarly safe and effective for recovering knee proprioception.

Indexed as

Anterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesAnterior Cruciate Ligament ReconstructionAutograftsFemaleHumansMaleProprioceptionProspective StudiesTransplantation, AutologousACL reconstructionArtificial ligamentLARSProprioceptionSports medicine

Identifiers

PMID36463165
PMCPMC9719127
OpenAlexW4311197842

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.