ArticleEuropean journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie2025
Does an accessory tibial fixation has any impact on tunnel diameter or functional outcome in conventional ACL reconstruction?
Article in European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEvaluation of tunnel widening and functional outcome parameters in conventional ACL reconstruction with and without accessory tibial fixation.
methods43 patients who underwent hamstring tendon ACL reconstruction were assessed retrospectively with a CT scan for tunnel widening and were compared to intra-operative drilling diameter. The functional assessment comprised of 2000 IKDC subjective knee score, Lysholm score, pivot shift test, and side-to-side difference in knee laxity.
results22 patients without accessory tibial fixation (Group A) and 21 patients with accessory tibial fixation (Group B) with a minimum follow-up of 29 months were compared. The clinical outcome parameters were comparable between the groups. On the rank-sum test, the percentage change in tunnel diameter did not exhibit any significant difference in the articular(F1) and middle portion(F2) of the femoral socket (P = 0.39 and 0.86 for F1 and F2, respectively) as well as in the articular(T1) and middle portion(T2) of tibial tunnel (P = 0.07 and 0.87 for T1 and T2, respectively). 4 out of 21 Group B patients complained about hardware prominence.
conclusionAccessory tibial fixation has no benefits in terms of tunnel widening and clinical outcomes. Rather it may lead to hardware prominence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III:
Indexed as
Identifiers
41046499What 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.