Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40308836›Full record

ArticleVideo journal of sports medicine

Revision Patellar Tendon Reconstruction Using Hamstring Tendon Autograft.

Estevao Santos, Wasif Islam, Michael Amick, Giscard J Adeclat, Michael J Medvecky

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Video journal of sports medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Estevao SantosDepartment of Orthopaedics & Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Wasif IslamDepartment of Orthopaedics & Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3241-1571
Michael AmickDepartment of Orthopaedics & Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Giscard J AdeclatDepartment of Orthopaedics & Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Michael J MedveckyDepartment of Orthopaedics & Rehabilitation, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1481-3232

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Patellar tendon ruptures presenting in a chronic setting are rare events that impose technical surgical challenges due to proximal retraction of the patella, quadriceps muscle atrophy and contracture, and peripatellar adhesions. Various reconstruction techniques have been described using different grafts and fixation methods; however, there is a paucity of reported outcomes and there is no consensus on standard of care. Indications: The patient is a 36-year-old man who presented with a failed patellar tendon reconstruction 14 months after his initial surgery (performed 1 year after the initial injury) with functional weakness and loss of extension. The patient was indicated for a revision patellar tendon reconstruction due to persistent functional limitations. Technique Description: The revision patellar tendon reconstruction was performed with gracilis and semitendinosus tendon autografts harvested from the ipsilateral limb. Hardware was removed from the initial graft tunnels in the tibial tubercle and patella. Patellar height was estimated using fluoroscopic measurement of the contralateral patellar tendon length. The graft is first passed through the patellar tunnel, and the individual limbs of the graft are then both placed through the tibial tubercle tunnel. A sternal wire in a figure-of-eight configuration was used to progressively distalize the patella to match the native patellar height, and the graft was then tensioned and secured together. Results: The patient regained full range of motion at 2-year follow-up and was able to return to work and activities without functional limitations. Recent case series also using ipsilateral hamstring tendon autograft for chronic patellar tendon reconstruction report improved patient outcome scores, normal Insall-Salvati index, improved quadriceps strength, and high levels of patient satisfaction. Discussion/Conclusion: Chronic patellar tendon ruptures are technically challenging to treat, especially in the context of revision of a failed reconstruction. The technique presented in this video may aid orthopaedic surgeons in treating this rare but debilitating injury. Given the lack of high-quality evidence, future studies are needed to explore graft choices, graft fixation techniques, and postoperative protocols. Patient Consent Disclosure Statement: The author(s) attests that consent has been obtained from any patient(s) appearing in this publication. If the individual may be identifiable, the author(s) has included a statement of release or other written form of approval from the patient(s) with this submission for publication.

Indexed as

chronic patellar tendon rupturehamstring autografthamstring tendon graftpatellar tendon reconstructiontendon injuries

Identifiers

PMID40308836
PMCPMC11969349

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.