ArticleScientific reports2025
Internal brace augmentation in ACL reconstruction increases structural strength and stiffness: a biomechanical study in a porcine tibia model.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Excellent 2-Year Outcomes of MUIB All-Inside ACL Reconstruction: A Registry-Based Analysis of 63 Patients With Zero Graft Failure.Orthopaedic surgery · 2026Article
- Peroneus Longus Autograft Harvest and Preparation for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.Arthroscopy techniques · 2026Article
- Osteoinductive and Biocompatibility Assessment of a 3D-Printed Polymeric-Hydroxyapatite Composite Interference Screw.Polymers · 2026Article
- Article
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
This study was to compare the biomechanical outcomes of three ACL graft tibial fixations. Biomechanical testing was performed on 36 fresh porcine tibias and flexor profundus tendon divided into three groups: interference screw group (n = 12), internal brace group (n = 12) and combined group (n = 12). The samples underwent cyclic loading at 1 Hz at 50-250 N for 1000 cycles, following by load-to-failure testing (200 mm/min). The cyclic displacement, stiffness and ultimate failure loads were compared between the techniques. No sample failed during cyclic load test. The mean periodic displacement of the combined group (1.97 ± 0.32 mm)was significantly lower than both the internal brace group (2.85 ± 0.43 mm; p < 0.05) and interference screw group (2.48 ± 0.31 mm; p<0.05), but there was no significant difference between two fixation alone groups. The mean failure load of combined fixation (821.71 ± 78.39 N) was higher than that with interference screw (631.97 ± 109.96 N; p < 0.01) or internal brace (566.04 ± 57.68 N; P < 0.01) fixation alone. The combined group showed greater pullout stiffness (217.79 ± 36.66 N/mm) than both the interference screw (151.69 ± 30.28 N/mm; p < 0.01) and internal brace (162.94 ± 35.42 N/mm; p < 0.01) groups. Through biomechanical analysis, this study has demonstrated the feasibility of the soft tissue grafts fixed with internal brace and interference screw and its superiority in terms of higher ultimate failure load and stiffness compared to those fixed alone for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. The findings from this study have significant implications for enhancing ACL reconstruction surgery.
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.