Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37213658›Full record

ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2023

Comparison of Onlay Anchor Fixation Versus Transosseous Fixation for Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis During Revision ACL Reconstruction.

Peter Behrendt, Hendrik Fahlbusch, Ralph Akoto, Grégoire Thürig, Jannik Frings, Elmar Herbst, Michael J Raschke, Karl-Heinz Frosch, Christoph Kittl, Matthias Krause

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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.

Peter BehrendtDepartment of Trauma Surgery, Orthopedics and Sportsorthopedics, Asklepios St Georg, Hamburg, Germany.
Hendrik FahlbuschDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Ralph AkotoDepartment of Trauma Surgery, Orthopaedics and Sports Traumatology, BG Hospital Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany.
Grégoire ThürigDepartment of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Cantonal Hospital Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland.
Jannik FringsDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Elmar HerbstDepartment of Trauma, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
Michael J RaschkeDepartment of Trauma, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
Karl-Heinz FroschDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Christoph KittlDepartment of Trauma, Hand and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Muenster, Muenster, Germany.
Matthias KrauseDepartment of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: There is evidence on the clinical effectiveness of the Lemaire technique for lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) in patients undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), but the best fixation technique is unknown. Purpose: To compare the clinical outcomes of 2 fixation techniques after revision ACLR: (1) onlay anchor fixation, which would avoid tunnel conflict and physis injury, and (2) transosseous tightening and interference screw fixation. Pain at the area of LET fixation was also assessed. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: This was a retrospective 2-center study of patients with first-time revision ACLR and either LET with anchor fixation (aLET) with a 2.4-mm suture anchor or LET with transosseous fixation (tLET). Outcomes at minimum 12-month follow-up were assessed with the International Knee Documentation Committee score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, visual analog scale for pain at the LET fixation area, Tegner score, and anterior tibial translation (ATT). A subgroup analysis within the aLET group investigated passing the graft over or under the lateral collateral ligament (LCL). Results: In total, 52 patients were included (26 patients in each group); the mean ± SD follow-up was 13.7 ± 3.4 months. No statistically significant differences were detected between the groups with respect to patient-reported outcome scores, clinical examination, or instrumented testing (side-to-side difference in ATT at 30° of flexion; aLET, 1.5 ± 2.5 mm; tLET, 1.6 ± 1.7 mm). Clinical failure was detected in 1 patient with aLET and none with tLET. Subgroup analysis revealed a small, nonsignificant flexion deficit in knees in which the iliotibial band strand was passed under (n = 42) or over (n = 10) the LCL. No clinically relevant tenderness was detected at the area of LET fixation in any group (aLET, 0.6 ± 1.3; tLET, 0.9 ± 1.7; over the LCL, 0.2 ± 0.6; under the LCL, 0.9 ± 1.6). Conclusion: Onlay anchor fixation and transosseous fixation of the LET were equivalent with respect to outcome scores and instrumented ATT testing. Clinically, there were minor differences in passage of the LET graft over or under the LCL.

Indexed as

ACLALRIkneelateral extra-articular tenodesisLemaire

Identifiers

PMID37213658
PMCPMC10196542

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.