ArticleOrthopaedic journal of sports medicine2026
Knotted Versus Knotless Suture Bridge Repair of the Proximal Rectus Femoris: A Biomechanical Study.
Article in Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: A proximal rectus femoris (PRF) avulsion is primarily seen among elite-level athletes, which may require surgery after failed nonoperative treatment. Although suture bridge repair is a common surgical technique to treat these injuries, it is unclear whether a knotted or knotless suture bridge construct is biomechanically superior. Purpose: To biomechanically compare the failure load, stiffness, and number of cycles until failure of knotted versus knotless suture bridge repair for PRF avulsions. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 8 pairs of fresh-frozen human cadaveric hemipelvises were included in this study. The PRF was harvested, along with its bony insertion at the anterior inferior iliac spine. Specimens underwent nondestructive testing in the intact state to assess linear stiffness. Each pair of specimens was randomly assigned to undergo knotted or knotless suture bridge repair. After surgical repair, the specimens underwent biomechanical testing consisting of a preconditioning phase, followed by pull to failure to assess the failure load, elongation at failure, stiffness, and mode of failure. Results: There was no difference in the failure load between knotless and knotted suture bridge repair (244 ± 124 vs 241 ± 136 N, respectively; Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the failure load between knotless and knotted suture bridge repair was not significantly different. However, stiffness as a percentage of the intact state in the knotless group was significantly higher than that in the knotted group. Therefore, this study suggests that the knotless suture bridge repair technique may be a better surgical option than the knotted suture bridge repair technique to restore stiffness of the PRF. Clinical Relevance: Elucidating a biomechanically superior repair method for PRF avulsions may inform optimal surgical techniques for treating these injuries, leading to lower failure rates and superior outcomes in patients.
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.