ArticleLa Tunisie medicale2023
Article in La Tunisie medicale, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTunnel enlargement following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has been frequently reported since the nineties, yet its etiologies remain unclear.
aimTo elucidate the factors favoring this phenomenon and to investigate its clinical and anatomical consequences.
methodsThis was a descriptive retrospective study conducted on 37 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction surgery using single-bundle hamstring tendons with fixation using absorbable interference screws at the Traumatology Department of the Kassab National Institute of Orthopedics. The patients were collected between January 2014 and September 2016. Tunnel enlargement, footprint, and tunnel orientation were assessed using standard knee radiographs. At follow-up, patients were evaluated using functional scores (Lysholm, Tegner, and IKDC), clinical examination, and Telos radiographs.
resultsThe average global Tunnel enlargement was 51.7% in the femur and 48.88% in the tibia. Femoral tunnel enlargement values were higher than tibial tunnel enlargement at all measurement levels, and it appeared to be a time-evolving phenomenon. Factors favoring tunnel enlargement seemed to include advanced age, male gender, delayed surgery, accelerated rehabilitation protocols, non-compliant placement of transplant footprints, and tunnel horizontalization. Tunnel enlargement did not influence functional scores (Lysholm, Tegner, and IKDC). However, based on the differential study of Telos radiographs, femoral and tibial tunnel enlargement in the lax knees group (38% of cases) was higher than in the stable knees group (62%). Nonetheless, our results were statistically non-significant with respective p-values of 0.584 and 0.53.
conclusionSeveral modifiable factors such as delayed surgery, accelerated rehabilitation protocols, incorrect footprint placement, and tunnel orientation appeared to influence the tunnel enlargement phenomenon. However, prospective studies with a larger sample would be necessary to confirm these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38477200PMC11261497W4394764648What 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.