ArticleAnnals of joint2026
Femoral tunnel reaming method in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction cannot be determined from plain radiographs alone.
Article in Annals of joint, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The precise location of tunnel placement significantly influences the outcome of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, and an accurate understanding of tunnel placement remains paramount during postoperative assessment. Despite this, surgeons commonly estimate tunnel position and the method used to ream the tunnel based on plain radiographs alone. This study aims to determine the accuracy and reliability with which orthopaedic surgeons and musculoskeletal specialists can identify femoral tunnel (FT) reaming technique using standard postoperative radiographs alone, and to evaluate whether perceived tunnel malposition influences assumptions about reaming method. Methods: This cross-sectional diagnostic study reviews postoperative radiographs from 40 ACL reconstructions (ACLRs) performed by the senior author. Twenty transtibially-reamed knees were matched with 20 anteromedially-reamed knees according to age, gender and body mass index (BMI). Surgical technique was identical for both groups, with the exception of FT reaming method, and postoperative radiographs were routinely obtained two weeks after surgery. Fifteen blinded orthopaedic or musculoskeletal trained reviewers evaluated radiographs for tunnel position and assumed reaming method. A kappa analysis was used to determine agreement among reviewers and assumed reaming method error rates were assessed parametrically. Results: Reaming method was chosen correctly 64% of the time. However, the overall kappa value was low at 0.26. Transtibial error rate correlated with negative judgements of FT placement with a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.648 (P=0.01). Conclusions: These results suggest that the reaming method cannot be reliably determined using standard postoperative radiographs, and that evaluators who judge the tunnel placement to be poor may be biased toward assuming the tunnel was reamed transtibially. Surgeons should be careful not to associate failed ACLR with particular reaming methods without additional data.
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.