ArticleJournal of orthopaedic surgery and research2025
Clinical outcomes and complications of four surgical techniques for tibial avulsion fractures of the posterior cruciate ligament: a retrospective comparative study.
Article in Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison between arthroscopic surgery and open reduction internal fixation in patients with posterior cruciate ligament tibial avulsion fracture: a systematic review with meta-analysis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Pooled it
- [Posterior open approach combined with suture bridge technique for tibial insertion avulsion fractures of posterior cruciate ligament].Zhongguo xiu fu chong jian wai ke za zhi = Zhongguo xiufu chongjian waike zazhi = Chinese journal of reparative and reconstructive surgery · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe optimal surgical approach for tibial avulsion fractures of the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) remains controversial. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of four techniques: arthroscopic suture fixation, arthroscopic loop plate fixation, open reduction with cannulated screw fixation, and open reduction with anchor suture bridge fixation.
methodsA retrospective review was conducted of 73 patients treated between January 2019 and December 2023 using one of four surgical techniques: arthroscopic suture fixation (Group A, n = 26), arthroscopic loop plate fixation (Group B, n = 14), open reduction with cannulated screw fixation (Group C, n = 16), and open reduction with anchor suture bridge fixation (Group D, n = 17). Demographic data, operative time, pre- and postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores, Lysholm scores, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, knee range of motion (ROM), and postoperative complications were analyzed.
resultsNo significant differences were observed in baseline demographic data among the four groups (P >.05). Operative time was shortest in Group D (60.41 ± 12.39 min), significantly less than in the other groups (P =.0001). At 3 months postoperatively, all groups demonstrated significant improvements in VAS, Lysholm, and IKDC scores (P <.0001); however, intergroup differences were not statistically significant (P >.05). Group A demonstrated significantly less ROM recovery compared with the other groups (P =.0171). At final follow-up, further improvements in functional scores and ROM were observed in all groups, with no significant intergroup differences (P >.05). Complication rates differed significantly among the groups (P =.0361), with Group D reporting the lowest rate (0%) and Group A the highest (34.6%).
conclusionNo significant differences were found in overall clinical outcomes among the four techniques. However, open reduction with anchor suture bridge fixation demonstrated favorable operative efficiency and complication profile, suggesting clinical advantages in selected patients.
trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2500100641. Registration Date: 2025-04-11, Retrospectively registered.
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.