ReviewAnnals of joint2023
Biomechanical comparison of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction fixation methods and implications on clinical outcomes.
Review in Annals of joint, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Clinical Outcomes and Biomechanical Considerations of Graft Selection-A Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Article
- All-Suture Cortical Button Fixation in All-Inside Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Quadriceps Tendon Autograft.Arthroscopy techniques · 2025Article
- Impact of infrapatellar fat pad injury severity on subsequent patellofemoral cartilage degeneration following acute ACL tear.Journal of orthopaedics · 2025Article
- A Technique for Augmenting Bone Graft in the Tibial Tunnel During Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Single-Tendon Hamstring Autograft.Arthroscopy techniques · 2025Article
- Superior long-term stability and function associated with femoral cortical button versus interference screw fixation in ACL reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
- Soft Tissue Graft Placement Using a Porcine Acellular Dermal Matrix (PADM) and Resorbable Magnesium Fixation Screws: A Case Series.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- One-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Preoperative evaluation, planning and surgical techniques. A review of current concepts.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 2025Review
- Technology Update in Management of Multi-Ligament Knee Injuries.Indian journal of orthopaedics · 2024Review
- Effect of Different Screw Materials on ACL Reconstruction With the Tape Locking Screw Technique: A Retrospective Study From the FAST Cohort.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2024Article
- Lateral femoral tunnel preparation and graft fixation for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction-A discussion.World journal of clinical cases · 2024Article
- Modified Implant Fixation Technique Is an Alternative for Patients with an Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tear in Limited Resource Settings: A Comparison Functional Outcome Study with Polyether Ether Ketone and Bioabsorbable Screws.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is one of the more common surgeries encountered by orthopaedic surgeons, which has its inherent challenges due to the complex anatomy and biomechanical properties required to reproduce the function and stability of the native ACL. Multiple biomechanical factors from graft choice and tunnel placement to graft tensioning and fixation methods are vital in achieving a successful clinical outcome. Common methods of ACLR graft fixation in both the primary and revision setting are classified into compression/interference, suspensory, or hybrid fixation strategies with multiple adjunct methods of fixation. The individual biomechanical properties of these implants are crucial in facilitating early post-operative rehabilitation, while also withstanding the shear and tensile forces to avoid displacement and early graft failure during graft osseointegration. Implants within these categories include the use of interference screws (IFSs), as well as suspensory fixation with a button, posts, surgical staples, or suture anchors. Outcomes of comparative studies across the various fixation types demonstrate that compression fixation can decrease graft-tunnel motion, tunnel widening, and graft creep, at the risk of damage to the graft by IFSs and graft slippage. Suspensory fixation allows for a minimally invasive approach while allowing similar cortical apposition and biomechanical strength when compared to compression fixation. However, suspensory fixation is criticized for the risk of tunnel widening and increased graft-tunnel motion. Several adjunct fixation methods, including the use of posts, suture-anchors, and staples, offer biomechanical advantages over compression or suspensory fixation methods alone, through a second form of fixation in a second plane of motion. Regardless of the method or implant chosen for fixation, technically secure fixation is paramount to avoid displacement of the graft and allow for appropriate integration of the graft into the bone tunnel. While no single fixation technique has been established as the gold standard, a thorough understanding of the biomechanical advantages and disadvantages of each fixation method can be used to determine the optimal ACLR fixation method through an individualized patient approach.
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.