ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2024
Comparison of the biomechanical properties of grafts in three anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques based on three-dimensional finite element analysis.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2024. 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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the biomechanical characteristics of grafts from three different anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructive surgeries and to determine which method is better at restoring knee joint stability.
methodsA 31-year-old female volunteer was enrolled in the study. According to the magnetic resonance imaging of her left knee, a three-dimensional model consisting of the distal femur, proximal tibia and fibula, ACL, posterior cruciate ligament, medial collateral ligament and lateral collateral ligament was established. Then, the ACL was removed from the original model to simulate the knee joint after ACL rupture. Based on the knee joint model without the ACL, single-bundle ACL reconstruction, double-bundle ACL reconstruction, and flat-tunnel ACL reconstruction were performed. The cross-sectional diameters of the grafts were equally set as 6 mm in the three groups. The bone tissues had a Young's modulus of 17 GPa and a Poisson's ratio of 0.36. The ligaments and grafts had a Young's modulus of 390 MPa and a Poisson's ratio of 0.4. Six probes were placed in an ACL or a graft to obtain the values of the equivalent stress, maximum principal stress, and maximum shear stress. After pulling the proximal tibia with a forward force of 134 N, the distance that the tibia moved and the stress distribution in the ACL or the graft, reflected by 30 mechanical values, were measured.
resultsThe anterior tibial translation values were similar among the three groups, with the double-bundle ACL reconstruction group performing the best, followed closely by the patellar tendon ACL reconstruction group. In terms of stress distribution, 13 out of 30 mechanical values indicated that the grafts reconstructed by flat bone tunnels had better performance than the grafts in the other groups, while 12 out of 30 showed comparable outcomes, and 5 out of 30 had worse outcomes.
conclusionCompared with traditional single-bundle and double-bundle ACL reconstructions, flat-tunnel ACL reconstruction has advantages in terms of stress dispersion. Additionally, flat-tunnel ACL reconstruction falls between traditional double-bundle and single-bundle ACL reconstructions in terms of restoring knee joint stability and is superior to single-bundle ACL reconstruction.
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.