ArticleJournal of orthopaedics2025
Magnetic Resonance imaging evaluation of the distance to the popliteal artery in arthroscopic popliteus tendon versus posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
Article in Journal of orthopaedics, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Wide acceptance of arthroscopically treating posterolateral corner injuries has not occurred. There remains a fear of neurovascular (NV) injury while arthroscopically performing these reconstructions. The study's aim is to compare on Magnetic Resonance Scans the distance of the tibial tunnel in an arthroscopic popliteus tendon reconstruction (APB) and arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction (APC) to the popliteal neurosvascular bundle. Methods: MRI scans of 93 patients were evaluated. The tibial tunnel exit point of an APB and an APC reconstruction was marked. The smallest distance of the center of the exit point of these tunnels to the NV bundle was assessed. Mean variances and distances were assessed. A Welch's unpaired Results: Mean distance to NV bundle from the tibial tunnel in an APB procedure was 15.9 mm. The mean distance to the NV bundle from an APC tibial tunnel was 11.2 mm. The Welch's unpaired Conclusion: The distance to the NV bundle from the tibial tunnel of an APB is significantly higher than the distance to the NV bundle from the tibial tunnel of a APC. However, there is a significantly larger variance in distance to the NV bundle in an APB. Drilling a tibial tunnel during an APB should therefore not be considered more dangerous than drilling the tibial tunnel during an APC.Level 4 LOE.
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.