ArticleKnee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA2026
The meniscofemoral ligaments do not contribute to restriction of posterior tibial translation: A robotic biomechanical analysis.
Article in Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to quantify the contribution of the meniscofemoral ligaments (MFLs) on restraining a posterior tibial translation (PTT) in the human knee joint.
methodsSixteen human cadaveric knee joints were tested in a robotic test setup with six degrees of freedom. Knees with no MFL, one MFL and two MFLs were included. Knee joints without MFLs were excluded from the statistical analysis regarding the influence of MFLs on PTT. The knees were tested in a displacement-controlled protocol, which replayed the native kinematics of a force controlled test protocol with PTT at 89 N in neutral tibial rotation, PTT in 5 Nm internal rotation, PTT in 5 Nm external rotation, while constantly measuring the force. The principle of superposition was used to determine the contribution of each cut structure (in-situ forces) to restraint of the performed movements. First, the anterior and posterior MFL (aMFL/pMFL) were randomly cut, followed by the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL).
resultsNeither the aMFL, nor the pMFL showed a significant contribution to the restriction of PTT in the PCL-intact knee neither in 0°, 30°, 60° or 90° of flexion in neutral, internal, or external rotation (p > 0.05). The PCL showed a significant contribution to the knee joint restraining PTT in 0°, 30°, 60° and 90° flexion as well as in all rotation states (all p < 0.05). A contribution of the PCL restraining PTT of 28% ± 14% in 0° flexion, 53% ± 21% in 30° flexion, 61% ± 20% in 60° flexion and 54% ± 16% in 90° knee flexion was measured in neutral rotation.
conclusionThe MFLs do not contribute to restriction of a PTT in any flexion angle, while the PCL acts as the primary restraint against PTT from 0°-90° knee flexion. This effect was seen in neutral rotation as well as in tibial internal and external rotation. This study indicates that a dissection of the MFLs to gain access to the PCL during reconstruction surgery does not destabilise the knee. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.
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.