ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2024
Biomechanical Comparison Between Double-Row Repair and Soft Tissue Tenodesis for Treatment of Proximal Rectus Femoris Avulsions.
Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Open Proximal Rectus Femoris Tendon Full-Thickness Tear Repair With Double-Row Suture Anchor Transosseous-Equivalent Construct With Biologic Augmentation Using Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate and Bovine Bioinductive Collagen Implant.Arthroscopy techniques · 2026Article
- Knotted Versus Knotless Suture Bridge Repair of the Proximal Rectus Femoris: A Biomechanical Study.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Some patients with proximal rectus femoris (PRF) avulsions require surgical treatment after failed nonoperative treatment. There is no consensus on the superiority of suture anchor repair with the suture-bridge repair (SBR) technique versus tenodesis repair (TR) for PRF avulsions. Purpose: To compare the failure load and elongation at failure between SBR and TR and to compare the stiffness of these 2 repair techniques versus the native state. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Seven pairs of human cadaveric hemipelvises were dissected to the PRF and sartorius origins. Each specimen underwent preconditioning followed by a distraction test to determine the stiffness of the native specimen. One specimen of each pair received one of the repair methods (SBR or TR), while the other specimen in the pair received the other repair technique. After repair, each specimen underwent preconditioning followed by a pull to failure. The failure load, elongation at failure, stiffness, mode of failure, and stiffness as a percentage of the native state were determined for each repair. Results: The SBR group exhibited a stronger failure load (223 ± 51 N vs 153 ± 32 N for the TR group; Conclusion: SBR and TR specimens were significantly weaker than the native tendon. The stiffness of the SBR was equivalent to that of the native tendon, while TR was significantly less stiff than the native tendon. The SBR was superior to TR in terms of failure load, stiffness, and percentage stiffness from the native state. Clinical Relevance: SBR may be a better surgical option than TR to optimize failure load and stiffness for PRF avulsions.
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.