ArticleIndian journal of orthopaedics2025
Do the ACL Reconstruction Outcomes with Hamstring Autografts Depend on Percentage of Native ACL Tibial Footprint Area Restored?
Article in Indian journal of orthopaedics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Tips for Accurate Beath Pin Length Measurement While Using an Arthroscopic Jig to Avoid Neurovascular Injury Due to Over Penetration (Hit-Pat's Method).Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To elucidate the implications of restoring larger percentage of native ACL tibial insertion area on the functional outcomes and stability of the knee joint after arthroscopic ACL reconstruction. Methods: Prospective study of 201 patients with clinical and radiological signs of ACL insufficiency, while individuals with multi-ligamentous injuries, concomitant intra-articular fractures, and revision ACL cases were excluded. Intraoperatively arthroscopic ruler was used to measure the native footprint dimensions and the percentage of native ACL footprint area restored was calculated. The patients were divided into two groups depending upon the percentage of native ACL tibial footprint area restored. Group A patients had > 70% area restored and group B < 70% area was restored. Pre- and postoperatively, patients were assessed using KT1000, Lysholm score, and IKDC score. Results: At 1 year follow-up, mean IKDC scores at 12 months for group A and group B were 89.28 ± 4.74 and 79.22 ± 4.98, respectively ( Conclusions: The functional outcomes in terms of IKDC and Lysholm scores were better, while there was no objective difference in the knee laxity when the ACL reconstruction procedure was able to restore more than 70% of the native ACL tibial footprint size.
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.