ArticleJournal of experimental orthopaedics2026
Comparison of the accuracy of two guiding devices for femoral tunnel position in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: A radiographic study.
Article in Journal of experimental orthopaedics, 2026. 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.
- Comparison of the accuracy of two guiding devices for femoral tunnel position in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: A radiographic study.Journal of experimental orthopaedics · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study evaluated the comparative efficacy of two guiding devices in positioning the femoral tunnel in the 'Isometric, Direct insertion, Eccentrically located, Anatomical, Low tension' (I.D.E.A.L.) zone during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 64 patients. Group A (32 cases) used traditional tools, while Group B (32 cases) used the modified locator. Postoperative three-dimensional computed tomography reconstructions of the femoral condyle were performed, and tunnel position (using the quadrant method) and the distance from the tunnel's posterior edge to the lateral condyle posterior wall were measured. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the differences between the two groups. Results: The mean femoral tunnel centre positions were 30.3% ± 4.5% (deep-shallow) and 25.5% ± 9.6% (high-low) in Group A, and 25.9% ± 3.9% (deep-shallow) and 26.6% ± 5.8% (high-low) in Group B. The ideal I.D.E.A.L. tunnel centre was defined at (28.4, 22.2). No significant difference in dispersion was observed between the two groups. But the tunnel centre in Group B is more concentrated near the posterior region of the femoral footprint. The distance from the posterior tunnel edge to the posterior wall was 3.5 ± 1.7 mm in Group A and 2.2 ± 1.0 mm in Group B, showing a significant difference. Each group had 1 case of the posterior wall rupture; the rupture rate did not differ significantly between the groups. Conclusion: The modified locator facilitates femoral tunnel placement closer to the posterior wall, which promotes the biomechanical conditions required for optimal graft isometry and low tension. Level of Evidence: Level IV and V, retrospective study.
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.