↓ Skip to main content

Reconstructive versus non-reconstructive treatment of anterior cruciate ligament insufficiency. A retrospective matched-pair long-term follow-up

Overview of attention for article published in International Orthopaedics, December 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
93 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
219 Mendeley
Title
Reconstructive versus non-reconstructive treatment of anterior cruciate ligament insufficiency. A retrospective matched-pair long-term follow-up
Published in
International Orthopaedics, December 2010
DOI 10.1007/s00264-010-1174-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nikolaus A. Streich, David Zimmermann, Gerrit Bode, Holger Schmitt

Abstract

In this retrospective case series 80 patients divided in 40 matched pair groups with an arthroscopically proven ACL insufficiency were followed up for 15 years. One half was reconstructed using an autologous BTB patella graft, the other half was treated by a conservative physiotherapeutic based rehabilitation program. At follow-up the clinical scores (Lysholm, IKDC) showed no significant differences between subjects who had undergone ACL reconstruction and those who had not. Furthermore there was no detectable difference in the incidence of osteoarthritis between the cohorts. Patients having a negative pivot shift test showed significantly less signs of radiographic osteoarthritis and better functional assessment scores whether reconstructed or not. Based on these results and a review of the literature there is no clear evidence that ACL reconstruction reduces the rate of OA development or improves the long-term symptomatic outcome. Probably review of reconstruction by an anatomical approach will be more successful than operative techniques decades ago.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 219 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Austria 1 <1%
Unknown 215 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 35 16%
Student > Bachelor 30 14%
Researcher 19 9%
Student > Postgraduate 17 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 5%
Other 43 20%
Unknown 63 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 80 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 14%
Sports and Recreations 14 6%
Unspecified 7 3%
Psychology 4 2%
Other 12 5%
Unknown 71 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 02 June 2018.
All research outputs
#13,128,816
of 22,663,969 outputs
Outputs from International Orthopaedics
#742
of 1,427 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,405
of 179,703 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Orthopaedics
#16
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,969 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,427 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 179,703 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.