ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2024
No clinically relevant relationship between different quantitative measurement methods of the lateral femoral condyle morphology on lateral radiographs in anterior cruciate ligament-injured patients.
Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Survival of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in patients with Ehlers-Danlos syndrome: A comparison with anatomic risk factors in existing literature.International orthopaedics · 2025Article
- DEEP lateral femoral notch sign is associated with lateral meniscus tear and non-spherical lateral femoral condyle in ACL deficient knee.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2025Article
- No clinically relevant relationship between different quantitative measurement methods of the lateral femoral condyle morphology on lateral radiographs in anterior cruciate ligament-injured patients.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To clarify whether different methods of quantifying lateral femoral condyle (LFC) bone morphology as risk factors for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury on lateral radiographs should be considered as individual risk factors and to assess inter- and intraobserver reliability. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 487 patients undergoing primary ACL reconstruction at our institution. Routine lateral radiographs of the injured knees were utilized to measure the following parameters: LFC ratio (LFCR), height of LFC to anteroposterior diameter ratio (HAPR), femur tibia size ratio (FTSR), tibia to posterior femoral condyle ratio (TPFCR) and Porto ratios (XY/AB; B/AB; B/XY). Malrotated radiographs were excluded. Pearson's correlation coefficients were used to identify relationships. Intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated for inter- and intraobserver reliability for two raters. Results: Fifty-eight patients were included. Means and standard deviations for LFCR were 63.7% ± 2.8%, HAPR 0.35 ± 0.02, FTSR 1.23 ± 0.07, TPFCR 2.99 ± 0.28, XY/AB 0.41 ± 0.08, B/AB 1.20 ± 0.06 and B/XY 3.05 ± 0.58. Significant correlations were observed between FTSR and XY/AB ( Conclusion: Different methods of quantifying LFC bone morphology should be considered as individual risk factors, characterized by good to excellent intraobserver reliability, but highly variable interobserver reliability. Level of Evidence: Level 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.