ArticleIndian journal of orthopaedics2025
Tunnel-Less Medial Collateral Ligament Reconstruction in MLKI: A Novel Technique to Prevent Tunnel Convergence.
Article in Indian 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Medial collateral ligament is an important structure to stabilize the knee against valgus/rotatory forces and requires prompt treatment especially in MLKI scenario. The primary aim is to assess the outcome of our modified tunnel-less technique of MCL repair with hamstring augmentation/reconstruction using suture anchors and staples in MLKI. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 26 patients of MLKI with concomitant valgus instability. All patients underwent MCL reconstruction or repair with augmentation.Patient demographic data, mode of injury, ligament injury pattern, surgical intervention, functional outcome and complications were compiled and evaluated. Outcomes including Lysholm score and ML-QOL score were computed at frequent intervals of 6, 12, and 18 months and final follow-up. Results: Of the 26 patients (21 males and 5 females), 9 patients underwent MCL repair with augmentation and 17 had MCL reconstruction. We had three cases of foot drop and one patient with vascular injury. The mean follow-up period of all the cases was 46.05 ± 10.04 months. Functional outcomes using Lysholm score improved significantly from 55.20 ± 6.42 at baseline to 90.79 ± 4.23 at final follow-up. Similar results were observed with the ML-QOL score which improved from 159.54 ± 14.65 to 61.04 ± 8.80 at final follow-up. Conclusion: This novel tunnel-less technique of MCL augmentation/reconstruction proved to be effective in stabilizing the knee, with significant improvements in functional outcomes. Thus, it provides a feasible alternative for the management of MCL injury in MLKI, avoiding tunnel convergence and subsequent failures.
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.