ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2024
The effect of manipulation under anesthesia on knee kinematics in individuals with arthrofibrosis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
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. 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.
- A Wearable System Featuring Biomimetic Spatially Distributed Iontronic Sensing Array for Dynamic Monitoring of Deep Tissue Modulus.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundManipulation under anesthesia (MUA) has been recommended for refractory arthrofibrosis after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, the effectiveness of MUA to restore normal kinematics of the arthrofibrotic knee is still unclear. The objective of this study was to evaluate tibiofemoral and patellofemoral kinematics in six degrees-of-freedom (6DOF) in patients with arthrofibrosis before and after MUA.
methodsComputed tomography and dual fluoroscopic imaging system were used to assess in vivo knee kinematics. Ten patients (6 women and 4 men; 32.6 ± 6.5y, 168.4 ± 7.8 cm, 61.8 ± 13.2 kg) were included in this study. The tibiofemoral and patellofemoral kinematics in 6DOF were collected before and one year after MUA. A simple analysis of variance was used to evaluate kinematic data of preoperative arthrofibrotic knee, postoperative arthrofibrotic knee, and the contralateral knee.
resultsThe patella in the postoperative arthrofibrotic knee shifted significantly more inferiorly compared to the preoperative knee at 45° (P = 0.010), 60° (P = 0.008), and 75° (P = 0.049) of flexion. The patellar flexion in the postoperative arthrofibrotic knee significantly increased at 45° (P = 0.048), 60° (P = 0.037), and 75° (P = 0.006) of flexion compared to the preoperative arthrofibrotic knee. The patellar tilt was significantly decreased at 60° (P = 0.006) and at 75° (P = 0.037) of knee flexion in the postoperative arthrofibrotic knee compared to the contralateral knee. MUA significantly increased tibial internal rotation angle in the arthrofibrotic knee at 45° (P = 0.047), at 60° (P = 0.033), and at 75° (P = 0.021) of knee flexion.
conclusionsMUA could restore normal patellar inferior shift, flexion, and tibial rotation compared to the contralateral side. However, the MUA could not restore normal patellar tilt of the arthrofibrotic knee. This indicated that improvement of patellar tilt should be emphasized in postoperative rehabilitation.
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.