Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40557132›Full record

ArticleVideo journal of sports medicine

Re-Revision ACLR: Operative Considerations.

Hansel Ihn, Elaine Shing, Travis Maak

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

3 authors.

Hansel IhnDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1262-8535
Elaine ShingDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Travis MaakDepartment of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Re-revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a challenging clinical problem. A multifactorial approach to this situation is necessary to address each patient's needs fully. Indications: Persistent instability. Technique Description: Contralateral bone-patellar tendon-bone ACLR with tibial bone defect bone grafting and postfixation of the tibial bone plug. Concomitant lateral extra-articular tenodesis was also performed. Results: At the 12-week follow-up, the patient had regained full range of motion and demonstrated sagittal stability on examination. However, with published data consistently demonstrating low return to preinjury level of activity, we remain cautiously optimistic with regard to her eventual outcome. Discussion/Conclusion: While it is important to be privy to the latest literature, it is also important to consider each patient's case individually. Consideration should be given to the patient's pertinent history and physical examination findings and not just radiographic parameters. Revision situations often present unforeseen challenges, so it is important to have contingency plans in place. Adopting techniques that minimize potential challenges, such as tunnel convergence, can be critical in successfully completing a surgery. 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

bone defectlateral extraarticular tenodesisosteotomyposterior tibial sloperevision ACLR

Identifiers

PMID40557132
PMCPMC12186213

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.