Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36660266›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of burns and trauma2022

Clinical outcome and computer tomography based tunnel placement evaluation following arthroscopic anteromedial portal anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in non-athletic population.

Himanshu Shekhar, Amit Srivastava, Rajesh Kumar Rajnish, Shuchi Bhatt, Anil K Jain, Rehan Ul Haq

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of burns and trauma, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Himanshu ShekharDepartment of Orthopaedics, University College of Medical Sciences and Associated Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital Delhi, India.
Amit SrivastavaDepartment of Orthopaedics, University College of Medical Sciences and Associated Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital Delhi, India.
Rajesh Kumar RajnishDepartment of Orthopaedics, University College of Medical Sciences and Associated Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital Delhi, India.
Shuchi BhattDepartment of Orthopaedics, University College of Medical Sciences and Associated Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital Delhi, India.
Anil K JainDepartment of Orthopaedics, University College of Medical Sciences and Associated Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital Delhi, India.
Rehan Ul HaqDepartment of Orthopaedics, University College of Medical Sciences and Associated Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital Delhi, India.
University College of Medical Sciences · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe morphology of distal femur and proximal tibia varies between different ethnicities, and it can affect the tunnel dimensions and positions while doing ACL reconstruction which may affect the clinical outcome. There is limited data on the clinical outcome and CT based tunnel placement evaluation in femur and tibia of Indian nonathletic population.

methodsThirty non-athletic patients with mean age of 25.50±6.9 years and ACL rupture who underwent single bundle hamstring autograft arthroscopic ACL reconstruction by anteromedial portal were included in the study. Their preoperative IKDC Score, Lysholm-Tegner score, Tegner activity level were calculated and knee stability was assessed clinically using anterior drawer test, Lachman test and pivot shift test. The CT scan of the operated knee was done once the complete extension of the knee was achieved. Using the multimodality workstation available at the department of radio-diagnosis the tunnel parameters of femoral and tibial tunnel was calculated. After 6 months the patients were reassessed for clinical and radiological outcome. The postoperative outcome was compared with preoperative outcome.

resultsThere was a significant difference in preoperative and postoperative score, the difference in IKDC score was 15.08 points, improvement of 14.65 points was seen in Lysholm-Tegner score and there was marked improvement in Tegner activity level. Tests for knee stability were normal in >90% of patients postoperatively. The CT evaluation showed that the femoral tunnels were positioned at 28.45%±3.69% (20.16%-38.35%) along the deep-shallow axis and 25.81%±3.819% (20.69%-37.35%), the mean tunnel obliquity compared to the femoral shaft axis were 47.34°±5.427° (37.68°-58.16°) in the coronal plane and 47.93°±7.023° (35.11°-63.95°), the mean tunnel length was 3.38 cm±0.331 cm (2.79 cm-4.18 cm). The tibial tunnel were positioned at 45.63%±5.832% (32.23%-58.23%) along the anterior-posterior axis and 47.70%±2.26% (42.40%-51.96%) along the medio-lateral axis. The tibial tunnel length was found to be 3.89 cm±0.519 cm (3.05 cm-5.06 cm).

conclusionThis study helps to ascertain that the ACL reconstruction via anteromedial portal technique using femoral offset zig followed by postoperative home-based rehabilitation technique gives favorable clinical outcomes in Indian non-athletic patients. All patients had improvement in stability of knee after the surgery. The position of femoral tunnels was anatomical but in comparison to Caucasian patients its placement was deeper and higher. Hence, we conclude that the anteromedial portal technique of ACL reconstruction provides favorable clinical outcome and adequate anatomical tunnel placement in Indian non athletic patients.

Indexed as

anatomyAnterior cruciate ligamentclinical outcomeCT scanmorphologyMRIradiological outcomereconstruction

Identifiers

PMID36660266
PMCPMC9845806
OpenAlexW4317567296

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.