ArticleArthroscopy, sports medicine, and rehabilitation2024
Drop Vertical Jump Landing Mechanics Are Similar Between Patients With Quadriceps Tendon and Patellar Tendon Autografts After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Effect of Graft Type on Vertical Jump Performance After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Quadriceps tendon autograft for ACL reconstruction: A global survey from the International Quadriceps Tendon Interest Group.Journal of experimental 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the biomechanics of a drop vertical jump (DVJ) landing task and functional outcomes among patients with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with quadriceps tendon (QT) and patellar tendon (PT) autografts. Methods: Physically active patients who underwent primary ACLR with either a QT or PT autograft were included in this study. All were within 6 months to 2 years after surgery and cleared for return to physical activity. Subjects completed DVJs in a biomechanics laboratory. Peak vertical ground reaction force (VGRF) and lower-extremity joint sagittal and frontal plane kinematics and kinetics were collected and analyzed. Mann-Whitney Results: Twenty-four physically active individuals who underwent primary ACLR with QT (n = 14) or PT (n = 10) autografts completed DVJs in a biomechanics laboratory. There were no statistically significant biomechanical differences between the QT and PT groups. Peak VGRF differed between the surgical and nonsurgical limbs for the QT (surgical and nonsurgical, 1.10 and 1.30 N) and PT (surgical and nonsurgical, 1.10 and 1.35 N) groups. Specifically, both groups demonstrated lower VGRFs in the surgical limb compared with the nonsurgical limb ( Conclusions: Regardless of the graft-specific surgical technique, patients who undergo ACLR are returning to activity with movements that resemble an offloading pattern of the surgical limb. Coupled with the finding of an absence of differences in kinematic and kinetic variables between the QT and PT autograft groups suggests that the QT graft may be a viable alternate graft source for ACLR. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
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.