↓ Skip to main content

One-incision versus two-incision techniques for arthroscopically assisted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
107 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
One-incision versus two-incision techniques for arthroscopically assisted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010875.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fernando C Rezende, Vinícius Y Moraes, Carlos ES Franciozi, Pedro Debieux, Marcus V Luzo, João Carlos Belloti

Abstract

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears are serious knee injuries that are frequently treated surgically in the form of arthroscopically assisted reconstruction with grafts from the patella or hamstrings tendons. We reviewed the evidence for the choice of arthroscopically assisted ACL reconstruction technique in terms of whether it should involve one incision (femoral tunnel drilled from inside the knee joint under arthroscopic visualisation) or two incisions (femoral tunnel drilled from outside to inside the knee joint). To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of one-incision versus two-incision techniques for arthroscopically assisted ACL reconstruction in adults. We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, reference lists, and conference abstracts. The date of the search was 16 August 2017. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled clinical trials evaluating one-incision versus two-incision techniques for arthroscopically assisted ACL reconstruction in adults. Two review authors independently searched and selected studies, and extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the eligible studies. We undertook limited pooling of data using the fixed-effect model. We included five trials (four randomised and one quasi-randomised) evaluating a total of 320 participants who were mainly in their 20s. All participants underwent ACL reconstruction with patella tendon grafts. All five included trials were at a high risk of bias, particularly performance bias. Based on these limitations and the insufficiency of the available data resulting in imprecision of effect estimates, we judged the quality of the evidence as very low for all outcomes. This means that we are uncertain of the findings of the review.We found very low-quality evidence of no clinically important differences between the two techniques in self reported knee function, measured using the Lysholm knee score (scale 0 to 100: best outcome), at short-term (3 months) (mean difference (MD) 2.73 favours one-incision technique, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.70 to 8.15; 79 participants, 2 studies), intermediate-term (12 months) (MD -3.68 favours two-incision technique, 95% CI -6.61 to -0.75; 79 participants, 2 studies), and long-term follow-up. The data available for long-term follow-up (2 to 5 years) was expressed in terms of the numbers of participants with excellent Lysholm scores (90 points or more); we found no difference between the two groups (42/45 versus 36/40; risk ratio (RR) 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.18; 1 study). There were no data for quality of life measures or for overall numbers of participants incurring an adverse event. We found very low-quality evidence of little between-group differences in individual adverse events such as infection, knee stiffness, reoperation, and graft failure.We found very low-quality evidence from one study (59 participants) of little difference between the two groups in activity levels measured using Tegner scores (scale 0 to 10: highest sport activity) at two years (MD -0.80 favours two-incision technique, 95% CI -1.90 to 0.30). There was very low-quality evidence from four studies of minimal between-group difference in the number of participants with normal or nearly normal objectively measured knee function (International Knee Documentation Committee objective assessment grading) at intermediate follow-up (means 12 to 28 months): 56/78 versus 63/89; RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.21; 167 participants). The very low-quality and often absent evidence means that we are uncertain whether one-incision arthroscopically assisted ACL reconstruction techniques yield better, worse, or equivalent results compared with two-incision techniques in terms of short-, intermediate-, or long-term subjective function, quality of life, adverse outcomes, activity levels, and objectively rated knee function. The evidence was available only for single-bundle ACL reconstruction using patella tendon grafts.When considering priorities for high-quality randomised trials on techniques for ACL reconstruction, it is important to note the insufficiency of the evidence available to inform this key comparison.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 107 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 19%
Student > Bachelor 17 16%
Researcher 15 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 11%
Student > Postgraduate 10 9%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 19 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 13%
Psychology 5 5%
Sports and Recreations 4 4%
Social Sciences 4 4%
Other 15 14%
Unknown 24 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 August 2020.
All research outputs
#4,067,125
of 15,579,684 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,603
of 11,222 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#117,846
of 407,918 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#147
of 230 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,579,684 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,222 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.3. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% 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 407,918 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 230 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.