Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38078954›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2024

Evaluating femoral graft placement using three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging in the reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament via independent or transtibial drilling techniques: a retrospective cohort study.

Jack Legler, Carl Laverdiere, Mathieu Boily, Magdalena Tarchala, Adam Hart, Paul A Martineau

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2024. 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
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Comparison of autograft and allograft outcomes in adolescent ACL reconstruction: a propensity score analysis.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025
    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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jack LeglerFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. jack.legler@mail.mcgill.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-4308-7586
Carl LaverdiereDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada.
Mathieu BoilyDepartment of Diagnostic Radiology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada.
Magdalena TarchalaDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Fraser Health, Vancouver, Canada.
Adam HartDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada.
Paul A MartineauDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Canada.
McGill University Health Centre · CAFraser Health · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAnterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is a common surgical procedure, yet failure still largely occurs due to nonanatomically positioned grafts. The purpose of this study was to retrospectively evaluate patients with torn ACLs before and after reconstruction via 3D MRI and thereby assess the accuracy of graft position on the femoral condyle.

methodsForty-one patients with unilateral ACL tears were recruited. Each patient underwent 3D MRI of both knees before and after surgery. The location of the reconstructed femoral footprint relative to the patient's native footprint was compared.

resultsNative ACL anatomical location of the native ACL had a significant impact on graft position. Native ACLs that were previously more anterior yielded grafts that were more posterior (3.70 ± 1.22 mm, P = 0.00018), and native ACL that were previously more proximal yielded grafts that were more distal (3.25 ± 1.09 mm, P = 0.0042). Surgeons using an independent drilling method positioned 76.2% posteriorly relative to the native location, with a mean 0.1 ± 2.8 mm proximal (P = 0.8362) and 1.8 ± 3.0 mm posterior (P = 0.0165). Surgeons using a transtibial method positioned 75% proximal relative to the native location, with a mean 2.2 ± 3.0 mm proximal (P = 0.0042) and 0.2 ± 2.6 mm posterior (P = 0.8007). These two techniques showed a significant difference in magnitude in the distal-proximal axis (P = 0.0332).

conclusionThe femoral footprint position differed between the native and reconstructed ACLs, suggesting that ACL reconstructions are not accurate. Rather, they are converging to a normative reference point that is neither anatomical nor isometric.

Indexed as

Anterior Cruciate LigamentAnterior Cruciate Ligament InjuriesFemurHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalKnee JointMagnetic Resonance ImagingRetrospective StudiesTibia3DACLFemoral footprintIsotropic imagingMRI

Identifiers

PMID38078954
OpenAlexW4389573658

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.