↓ Skip to main content

In–out versus out–in technique for ACL reconstruction: a prospective clinical and radiological comparison

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
Title
In–out versus out–in technique for ACL reconstruction: a prospective clinical and radiological comparison
Published in
Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, May 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10195-017-0458-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edoardo Monaco, Mattia Fabbri, Andrea Redler, Raffaele Iorio, Jacopo Conteduca, Giuseppe Argento, Andrea Ferretti

Abstract

Several studies have recently shown better restoration of normal knee kinematics and improvement of rotator knee stability after reconstruction with higher femoral tunnel obliquity. The aim of this study is to evaluate tunnel obliquity, length, and posterior wall blowout in single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, comparing the transtibial (TT) technique and the out-in (OI) technique. Forty consecutive patients operated on for ACL reconstruction with hamstrings were randomly divided into two groups: group A underwent a TT technique, while group B underwent an OI technique. At mean follow-up of 10 months, clinical results and obliquity, length, and posterior wall blowout of femoral tunnels in sagittal and coronal planes using computed tomography (CT) scan were assessed. In sagittal plane, femoral tunnel obliquity was 38.6 ± 10.2° in group A and 36.6 ± 11.8° in group B (p = 0.63). In coronal plane, femoral tunnel obliquity was 57.8 ± 5.8° in group A and 35.8 ± 8.2° in group B (p = 0.009). Mean tunnel length was 40.3 ± 1.2 mm in group A and 32.9 ± 2.3 mm in group B (p = 0.01). No cases of posterior wall compromise were observed in any patient of either group. Clinical results were not significantly different between the two groups. The OI technique provides greater obliquity of the femoral tunnel in coronal plane, along with satisfactory length of the tunnel and lack of posterior wall compromise. II, prospective study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 21%
Researcher 8 11%
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 28 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 10%
Sports and Recreations 3 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 29 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 June 2017.
All research outputs
#21,186,729
of 23,849,058 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology
#187
of 222 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#272,642
of 312,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Orthopaedics and Traumatology
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,849,058 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 222 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,419 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.