ArticleArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2024
Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Augmented With a Reinforced Bioinductive Implant Is Biomechanically Similar to the Native Medial Patellofemoral Ligament at Time Zero in a Cadaveric Model.
Article in Arthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation, 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.
- Bioinductive scaffold augmentation of the patellar tendon: a scoping review of indications, techniques and early outcomes.International 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To biomechanically compare primary medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) repair (MPFLr) augmented with a reinforced bioinductive implant (RBI) to the native MPFL ligament and a semitendinosus (semi-T) MPFL reconstruction (MPFLR) at time zero. Methods: Four fresh-frozen matched pair cadavers (8 knees) were used to biomechanically compare the native MPFL to augmented MPFLr (n = 4) and semi-T MPFLR (n = 4). The native MPFL (n = 8) was isolated, preserving the femoral and patellar attachments, and pulled to failure. The semi-T was harvested from 1 of the matched pairs and whipstitched, as was a 250-mm × 5-mm RBI. A standard double-bundle docking technique was utilized. The patella was potted and mechanically pulled parallel to the transverse axis until failure in both cohorts. Cyclic creep, load and displacement at failure, failure mode, and stiffness were recorded. Results: Failure load was highest in the RBI with repair group (287 ± 130 N) compared to the native MPFL (219 ± 64 N) and the semi-T group (84 ± 29 N). No statistically significant difference in failure load between the RBI augmentation with repair group and the native ligament ( Conclusions: No statistically significant difference was seen between the augmented MPFL repair and the native MPFL in load-to-failure testing. The augmented MPFL repair was observed to have biomechanical properties similar to the native MPFL. MPFLr with RBI augmentation provided consistent stiffness at clinically relevant displacement. Clinical Relevance: Primary MPFL repair and reconstruction using the semi-T graft, while effective, are nevertheless imperfect procedures. MPFL repair has been shown to have higher instability recurrence rates, while the stiffness profile of MPFLR with semi-T is higher than the native MFPL and may lead to knee stiffness, loss of motion, or cartilage damage. The results of this time-zero biomechanical study indicate that the use of an RBI for augmentation of a primary MPFL repair may be a viable alternative to traditional MPFL repair or reconstruction using a semi-T graft.
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.