To unlock this feature and to subscribe to our weekly evidence emails, please create a FREE orthoEvidence account.

SIGNUP

Already Have an Account?

Loading...
Visit our Evidence-Based Covid-19 Website and Stay Up to Date with the latest Research.
Ace Report Cover

Similar 3-D motion results between anatomic and nonanatomic ACL reconstruction techniques

Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Author Verified
Ace Report Cover
April 2016

Similar 3-D motion results between anatomic and nonanatomic ACL reconstruction techniques

Vol: 5| Issue: 4| Number:65| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Therapy
OE Level Evidence:2
Journal Level of Evidence:1

Rotational laxity after anatomical ACL reconstruction measured by 3-D motion analysis: a prospective randomized clinical trial comparing anatomic and nonanatomic ACL reconstruction techniques

Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015 Dec;23(12):3473-81

Contributing Authors:
MB Bohn H Sørensen MK Petersen K Søballe M Lind

Did you know you're eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report? Click Here

Synopsis

45 patients with an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury and scheduled for arthroscopic reconstruction were randomized to one of three reconstruction techniques; anatomic double-bundle reconstruction with an anteromedial portal (AMP) technique, anatomic single-bundle reconstruction with an AMP technique, or nonanatomic single-bundle reconstruction with a transtibial technique. The purpose of th...

CME Image

Did you know that you’re eligible to earn 0.5 CME credits for reading this report!

LEARN MORE

Join the Conversation

Please Login or Join to leave comments.

Learn about our AI Driven
High Impact Search Feature

High Impact Icon

Our AI driven High Impact metric calculates the impact an article will have by considering both the publishing journal and the content of the article itself. Built using the latest advances in natural language processing, OE High Impact predicts an article’s future number of citations better than impact factor alone.

Continue