↓ Skip to main content

Surgery for anterior cruciate ligament deficiency: a historical perspective

Overview of attention for article published in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, November 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

facebook
2 Facebook pages
q&a
1 Q&A thread

Citations

dimensions_citation
138 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
239 Mendeley
Title
Surgery for anterior cruciate ligament deficiency: a historical perspective
Published in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, November 2011
DOI 10.1007/s00167-011-1756-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Oliver S. Schindler

Abstract

The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) has entertained scientific minds since the Weber brothers provided biomechanical insight into the importance of the ACL in maintaining normal knee kinematics. Robert Adams described the first clinical case of ACL rupture in 1837 some 175 years to date, followed by Mayo-Robson of Leeds who performed the first ACL repair in 1895. At that time, most patients presented late and clinicians started to appreciate signs and symptoms and disabilities associated with such injuries. Hey Groves of Bristol provided the initial description of an ACL reconstruction with autologous tissue graft in 1917, almost as we know it today. His knowledge and achievements were, however, not uniformly appreciated during his life time. What followed was a period of startling ingenuity which created an amazing variety of different surgical procedures often based more on surgical fashion and the absence of a satisfactory alternative than any indication that continued refinements were leading to improved results. It is hence not surprising that real inventors were forgotten, good ideas discarded and untried surgical methods adopted with uncritical enthusiasm only to be set aside without further explanation. Over the past 100 years, surgeons have experimented with a variety of different graft sources including xenograft, and allografts, whilst autologous tissue has remained the most popular choice. Synthetic graft materials enjoyed temporary popularity in the 1980 and 1990s, in the misguided belief that artificial ligaments may be more durable and better equipped to withstand stresses and strains. Until the 1970s, ACL reconstructions were considered formidable procedures, often so complex and fraught with peril that they remained reserved for a chosen few, never gaining the level of popularity they are enjoying today. The increasing familiarity with arthroscopy, popularised through Jackson and Dandy, and enhancements in surgical technology firmly established ACL reconstruction as a common procedure within the realm of most surgeons' ability. More recently, the principle of anatomic ACL reconstruction, aiming at the functional restoration of native ACL dimensions and insertion sites, has been introduced, superseding the somewhat ill-advised concept of isometric graft placement. Double-bundle reconstruction is gaining in popularity, and combined extra- and intra-articular procedures are seeing a revival, but more accurate and reliable pre- and post-operative assessment tools are required to provide customised treatment options and appropriate evaluation and comparability of long-term results. Modern ACL surgery is united in the common goal of re-establishing joint homoeostasis with normal knee kinematics and function which may ultimately assist in reducing the prevalence of post-operative joint degeneration. This review hopes to provide an insight into the historical developments of ACL surgery and the various controversies surrounding its progress. Level of evidence V.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 239 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 237 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 13%
Researcher 28 12%
Student > Postgraduate 28 12%
Student > Bachelor 27 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 9%
Other 57 24%
Unknown 46 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 121 51%
Sports and Recreations 16 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 6%
Engineering 9 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Other 16 7%
Unknown 56 23%
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 16 September 2018.
All research outputs
#7,417,753
of 22,681,577 outputs
Outputs from Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
#998
of 2,633 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,287
of 239,495 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
#10
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,681,577 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,633 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 239,495 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
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 72% of its contemporaries.