↓ Skip to main content

The Role of Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis in Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis and Best-Evidence Synthesis

Overview of attention for article published in Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
93 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Role of Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis in Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis and Best-Evidence Synthesis
Published in
Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, October 2017
DOI 10.1177/2325967117731767
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brian M. Devitt, Stuart W. Bell, Clare L. Ardern, Taylor Hartwig, Tabitha J. Porter, Julian A. Feller, Kate E. Webster

Abstract

The role of lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LEAT) to augment primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) remains controversial. To determine whether the addition of LEAT to primary ACLR provides greater control of rotational laxity and improves clinical outcomes compared with ACLR alone and to assess the impact of early versus delayed ACLR. Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. Two reviewers independently searched 7 databases for randomized and nonrandomized clinical studies comparing ACLR plus LEAT versus ACLR alone. Animal, cadaveric, and biomechanical studies; revision or repair procedures; and studies using synthetic ligaments and multiligamentous-injured knees were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed with a modified Downs and Black checklist. The primary outcome was postoperative pivot shift. These data were pooled by use of a fixed-effects meta-analysis model. The studies were divided into delayed (>12 months) and early (≤12 months) reconstruction groups for meta-analysis. A best-evidence synthesis was performed on the remaining outcome measures. Of 387 titles identified, 11 articles were included (5 of high quality). Meta-analysis of postoperative pivot shift in 3 studies of delayed primary ACLR showed a statistically significant difference for the pivot-shift test in favor of ACLR with LEAT (odds ratio [OR], 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24-0.81; P = .008; I(2) = 0). Meta-analysis of 5 studies of early primary ACLR found no statistically significant difference with the addition of LEAT (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.33-1.09; P = .10; I(2) = 33%). Insufficient evidence was available to determine whether the addition of LEAT had any effect on clinical, objective, subjective, and functional outcomes. In primary ACLR, no evidence is available showing additional benefit of LEAT in reducing the postoperative pivot shift in early reconstructions (≤12 months); however, LEAT may have a role in delayed ACLR. Strong evidence exists that a combined ACLR and LEAT reduces lateral femoral translation, but there is insufficient evidence to identify any benefit for other clinical outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users 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 93 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 93 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 14%
Student > Master 9 10%
Other 9 10%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 36 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 42%
Sports and Recreations 5 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Unspecified 3 3%
Arts and Humanities 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 40 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 24 August 2018.
All research outputs
#3,409,144
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine
#534
of 2,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,897
of 338,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine
#20
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,698 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
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 338,208 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.