Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38334592›Full record

ArticleSICOT-J2024

What is the best fixation method in medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction? A biomechanical comparison of common methods for femoral graft attachment.

Léonard Vezole, Stanislas Gunst, Laure-Lise Gras, Jobe Shatrov, Ozgur Mertbakan, Sébastien Lustig, Elvire Servien

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in SICOT-J, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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 48% 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. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Léonard VezoleOrthopaedics Surgery and Sports Medicine Department, FIFA Medical Center of Excellence, Croix-Rousse Hospital, Lyon University Hospital, 69004, Lyon, France.ORCID 0000-0002-3217-9960
Stanislas GunstOrthopaedics Surgery and Sports Medicine Department, FIFA Medical Center of Excellence, Croix-Rousse Hospital, Lyon University Hospital, 69004, Lyon, France - Univ Lyon, Claude Bernard Lyon 1 University, IFSTTAR, LBMC UMR_T9406, F69622, Lyon, France.
Laure-Lise GrasUniv Lyon, Claude Bernard Lyon 1 University, IFSTTAR, LBMC UMR_T9406, F69622, Lyon, France.
Jobe ShatrovOrthopaedics Surgery and Sports Medicine Department, FIFA Medical Center of Excellence, Croix-Rousse Hospital, Lyon University Hospital, 69004, Lyon, France.
Ozgur MertbakanOrthopaedics Surgery and Sports Medicine Department, FIFA Medical Center of Excellence, Croix-Rousse Hospital, Lyon University Hospital, 69004, Lyon, France.
Sébastien LustigOrthopaedics Surgery and Sports Medicine Department, FIFA Medical Center of Excellence, Croix-Rousse Hospital, Lyon University Hospital, 69004, Lyon, France - Univ Lyon, Claude Bernard Lyon 1 University, IFSTTAR, LBMC UMR_T9406, F69622, Lyon, France.
Elvire ServienOrthopaedics Surgery and Sports Medicine Department, FIFA Medical Center of Excellence, Croix-Rousse Hospital, Lyon University Hospital, 69004, Lyon, France - LIBM - EA 7424, Interuniversity Laboratory of Biology of Mobility, Claude Bernard Lyon 1 University, Lyon, France.
Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FRHôpital de la Croix-Rousse · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionA variety of techniques have been described for femoral fixation in medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction (MPFLr). The aim of this study was to compare the biomechanical performance of the most used methods for graft fixation in the femur using human cadaveric tissue. We wondered what is the best fixation method for femoral fixation in MPFL reconstruction? HYPOTHESIS: A suspensory fixation device provides the best femoral fixation. MATERIAL AND

methodTwenty cadaveric knees were tested. Four femoral fixation methods were compared (5 knees per group): interference fixation with a Biosure© RG 5 mm and a 7 mm, suture anchor (Healicoil Regenesorb 4.75 mm ©) and suspensory fixation with the Ultrabutton©. The testing was divided in preconditioning, cyclic loading and load to failure. Load to failure, elongation, stiffness and mode of failure were recorded and compared.

resultsThe Ultrabutton© had the highest mean ultimate load (427 ± 215 N (p = 0.5)), followed by Healicoil anchor © (308 ± 44 N (p > 0.05)) and the interference screw of 7 mm (255 ± 170 N (p > 0.05)). Mean stiffness was similar in the Ultrabutton© and 4.75 mm. Healicoil anchor © groups (111 ± 21 N/mm and 119 ± 20 N/mm respectively), and lowest in 7 mm Biosure© screw fixation group (90 ± 5 N/mm). The Biosure© 5 mm RG screw presented 100% of premature rupture because of tendon slippage. The Ultrabutton© presented the lowest premature rupture (40%). DISCUSSION: A suspensory fixation for the femur had the lowest number of graft failures and highest load to failure. This study has implications for surgeons' choice of graft fixation in MPFLr. It is the first study to test the most commonly femoral used fixation methods, allowing direct comparisons between each method.

Indexed as

Biomechanical evaluationCadaveric studyMedial patellofemoral ligamentPatellar instability

Identifiers

PMID38334592
PMCPMC10854485
OpenAlexW4391695859

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.