ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2025
Outperformance of Combined Artificial Anterolateral Ligament and ACL Reconstruction Compared With Isolated Artificial ACL Reconstruction in Knees With Anterolateral Structure and ACL Deficiency: A Biomechanical Analysis.
Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Combined Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Anterolateral Structure Reconstruction Through a Modified Single Femoral Tunnel.Arthroscopy techniques · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite the promising clinical outcomes of artificial polyethylene terephthalate (PET) ligaments in isolated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), their biomechanical performance after combined anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR)/ACLR in anterolateral structure (ALS)/anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)-deficient knees has not been investigated. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to compare biomechanical performance in cadaveric knees between combined artificial ALLR/ACLR and isolated artificial ACLR using PET ligaments. It was hypothesized that combined artificial ALLR/ACLR would restore native knee stability and outperform isolated artificial ACLR in ALS/ACL-deficient knees. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Eight fresh-frozen cadaveric knees were tested using a robotic manipulator. Each knee was tested in 4 states: (1) ALS/ACL intact, (2) ALS/ACL deficient, (3) ACLR, and (4) ALLR/ACLR. The anterior tibial translation (ATT) and tibial internal rotation (IR) in each knee condition were measured under 3 loads: (1) 89 N of anterior tibial loading, (2) 5 N·m of IR torque, and (3) simulated pivot shift (combined 5 N·m of IR torque and 7 N·m of valgus load). Results: During 89 N of anterior tibial loading, there were no significant differences in ATT between the isolated ACLR and ALLR/ACLR knees. During 5 N·m of IR torque, the mean tibial IR at 45° of flexion was significantly higher in the ACLR knees (32.49°± 7.96°) than in the ALLR/ACLR knees (21.78°± 3.03°) ( Conclusion: Combined artificial ALLR/ACLR restored native knee stability across multiple flexion angles and outperformed isolated artificial ACLR in ALS/ACL-deficient knees, particularly with respect to ATT and tibial IR during the pivot-shift test. Clinical Relevance: The indications of the artificial PET ligament may be expanded to include combined ALLR/ACLR to restore knee stability better than isolated artificial ACLR in ALS/ACL-deficient knees.
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.