ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2024
The method of femoral tunnel drilling in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction does not influence the return to sport rate.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- ACL reconstruction in football players: A nationwide Swedish registry study of anteromedial versus transtibial femoral tunnel techniques.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Limited evidence is available comparing the modified transtibial (MTT) and transportal (TP) techniques in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and their impact on returning to sports participation. The objective was to analyze the outcomes after arthroscopic reconstruction of the ACL in recreational athletes with a 2-year postoperative follow-up, comparing the MTT and TP techniques, based on the method used to drill the femoral tunnel. Hypotesis: The rate of return to sport would be comparable regardless of the surgical technique used. Material and methods: A retrospective study was conducted with 66 patients who underwent arthroscopic monofascicular ACL reconstruction between September 2016 and March 2020. Patients aged between 16 and 50 years old, recreational athletes at Tegner levels 6 and 7, with a 2-year follow-up were included. Groups were established for comparative analysis (MTT vs TP) based on the method for drilling the femoral tunnel. The main outcome variable was the return to sport at the same level. Secondary variables included patient satisfaction evaluated with a visual analogue scale (VAS) and knee function according to the Lysholm scale. Results: At 2 years of postoperative follow-up, the return to sport rate was 30.3 % in the MTT group and 33.3 % in the TP group (p = 0.791). There were no significant differences between both groups in patient satisfaction (p = 0.664) and knee function (p = 0.113). Conclusion: Drilling the femoral tunnel with the MTT and TP techniques did not influence the rate of return to sport, patient satisfaction, and knee function in recreational athletes with 2 years of postoperative follow-up. Level of evidence: III.
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.