ArticleCureus2024
Clinical Outcomes of Modified Suture Buttons for Tibial Side Fixation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Retrospective Comparative Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Restoring knee joint stability and resuming sports activities are important objectives of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The maintenance of anterior knee stability after ACL reconstruction is contingent on graft tension. Various devices and techniques have been used to achieve robust tibial graft tendon fixation, and their advantages and disadvantages are established. However, a gold standard has not been established. Therefore, we aimed to determine whether anterior knee joint stability and clinical outcomes of graft tendon fixation could be improved using a recently modified suture button (MSB) compared with using an adjustable suspensory fixator (ASF) at 1 year after double-bundle ACL reconstruction. Methods This study retrospectively analyzed postoperative data derived from 79 patients at a single center between January 2016 and December 2021. The patients were assigned to groups that underwent double-bundle ACL reconstruction with tibial fixation using an MSB (n = 30) that maintains tension while tying sutures, or an ASF (n = 49). We then compared complications, clinical outcomes and knee joint stability at 1 year postoperatively. Rates of postoperative infection, graft rupture, implant removal and residual anterior knee laxity (AKL) were compared between the groups using chi-square tests. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) based on Forgot Joint Score-12, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome, and Lysholm Knee scores were compared using Mann-Whitney U tests. Results One patient in the MSB group developed postoperative infection. Rates of graft rupture and implant removal in the MSB and ASF groups were 3.3% and 4.1%, and 3.6% and 10.2%, respectively. None of the PROMs differed between the groups. The proportions of postoperative AKL were 3.6% and 14.9% in the MSB and ASF groups, respectively. A trend towards lower postoperative AKL in the MSB group did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.25). Conclusions The incidence of AKL at a year after ACL reconstruction using the MSB was 3%. Postoperative AKL and clinical outcomes were comparable between the MSB and ASF groups. A low AKL rate and positive postoperative outcomes indicated that MSB could be an option for tibial-side fixation in 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.