ArticleBMC musculoskeletal disorders2022
Comparison of two different types of hybrid Tibial fixations for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective comparative cohort study.
Article 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 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Tibial Cortical Button Fixation and Bioabsorbable Interference Screw Plus U-Staple Fixation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Delayed Simultaneous Reconstruction of the ACL and MCL Using Ipsilateral Single Hamstring Tendon Autograft With A Modified Technique.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Article
- Femoral tunnel widening is associated with thigh muscle weakness following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A call for targeted rehabilitation.The Journal of international medical research · 2025Article
- Biomechanical Comparison of a Novel PEEK Tibial Cortical Suspension Device With 6 Metallic Femoral Cortical Suspension Devices Used in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2025Article
- No Difference in Bone Tunnel Enlargement and Clinical Outcome between Cortical Suspension and Hybrid Femoral Fixation in Hamstring Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.Orthopaedic surgery · 2024Article
- Anterior Screw Insertion Results in Greater Tibial Tunnel Enlargement Rates after Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction than Posterior Insertion: A Retrospective Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies have compared different kinds of fixations for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Nevertheless, there is no optimal method to date. To the best of authors' knowledge, there is no article discussing the combination of adjustable suspensory device and interference screw for hybrid tibial fixation.
methodsIn total, 66 patients (n = 34, adjustable suspensory device and interference screw; n = 32, cortical screw and interference screw) were analyzed. Their International Knee Documentation Committee score and Tegner activity level scale were evaluated before and after a 2-year follow-up. The Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score was evaluated after a 2-year follow-up. Physical exams such as range of motion, anterior knee pain (VAS > = 3) and Lachman test were assessed before and at least 12 months after surgery. To evaluate tunnel widening, anteroposterior and lateral view radiography was conducted 1 day and at least 12 months after surgery. A more than 10% change was considered tibial tunnel widening. Mann-Whitney U test, independent t test, paired t test, Fisher's exact test and chi-squared test were used to compare the variables. Linear and logistic regression models were applied to adjust for potential confounders.
resultsNo variable except gender (P = 0.006) showed significant difference with regard to demographic data. After adjustment, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding post-operative physical exams. Patients who used adjustable suspensory device and interference screw had lower post-operative Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score (adjusted β - 8.194; P = 0.017), Tegner activity level scale (adjusted β - 1.295; P = 0.001) and pre-operative degrees of knee flexion (adjusted β - 2.825; P = 0.026). Less percentage of tunnel widening in the lateral view of radiographs was seen in patients in group of adjustable suspensory device and interference screw (adjusted β - 1.733; P = 0.038). No significant difference was observed in the anteroposterior view of radiographs (adjusted β - 0.667; P = 0.26).
conclusionIn these 66 patients, we observed less tibial tunnel widening and lower post-operative functional scores in the group of adjustable suspensory device and interference screw. Both groups displayed similar outcomes of physical exams as well as improvement after operation. The proposed method may become an alternative option. Nonetheless, the quality of our study is still limited, and thus further studies are warranted to determine the efficacy and further application.
trial registrationJoint Institutional Review Board of Taipei Medical University, Taipei, Taiwan (No: N201805094 ). STUDY
designProspective comparative cohort study; Level of evidence, II.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.