Council on Sports Medicine &Amp; Fitness Program 2018
DOI: 10.1542/peds.141.1_meetingabstract.194
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Quadriceps Tendon Autograft in Adolescent Athletes

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
10
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
1
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Four studies (147 patients) reported Lysholm scores postoperatively at final reported follow‐up, with mean scores ranging from 94.0 to 99.5 (Fig. 2) [19, 33, 54, 75]. Three studies (151 patients) reported data on postoperative IKDC subjective scores at final reported follow‐up, with mean scores ranging from 75.9 to 94.0 (Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Four studies (147 patients) reported Lysholm scores postoperatively at final reported follow‐up, with mean scores ranging from 94.0 to 99.5 (Fig. 2) [19, 33, 54, 75]. Three studies (151 patients) reported data on postoperative IKDC subjective scores at final reported follow‐up, with mean scores ranging from 75.9 to 94.0 (Fig.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two studies (105 patients) reported rates of RTS, with mean rates ranging from 72/81 patients (88.9%) (95% CI 82.7–95.5%) at 36 months postoperation to 22/24 patients (91.7%) at 24 months postoperation [19, 75]. It should be noted that the lowest rate of RTS (88.9%) specified requirements of > 90% LSI on single‐leg functional tests or clinician approval [19], whereas the highest rate of RTS (91.7%) did not specify the criteria used to permit RTS [75].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…However, there are potential drawbacks and complications associated with using the anterior approach to harvest hamstring tendon autograft [2,12,16,19]. These include difficulty identifying the tendons, iatrogenic saphenous nerve injury, graft site morbidity, anterior scar cosmesis, and premature amputation of the tendon during harvest [3,7,14,15,18,21].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%