2016
DOI: 10.1007/s00167-016-4205-z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Using pre-operative MRI to predict intraoperative hamstring graft size for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Abstract: III.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

6
63
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 42 publications
(69 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
6
63
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Studies that have investigated both patient characteristics and imaging-based prediction are scarce. 15,16 Our findings were partially in line with Leiter et al, 16 who found CSA measurement of the HTs combined with weight to be most predictive for HT autograft diameter with an explained variance of 29%. On the contrary, Grawe et al 15 found CSA measurement and age as only significant predictors after multivariate analysis.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
See 3 more Smart Citations
“…Studies that have investigated both patient characteristics and imaging-based prediction are scarce. 15,16 Our findings were partially in line with Leiter et al, 16 who found CSA measurement of the HTs combined with weight to be most predictive for HT autograft diameter with an explained variance of 29%. On the contrary, Grawe et al 15 found CSA measurement and age as only significant predictors after multivariate analysis.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…On the contrary, Grawe et al 15 found CSA measurement and age as only significant predictors after multivariate analysis. A possible explanation of this difference in findings is that Grawe et al 15 included patients from 9 to 58 years, where the study of Leiter et al 16 and the current study comprised an adult population. Adolescents generally have smaller anthropometric measurements.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 71%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…1). [30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] The κ value assessing interreviewer agreement was substantial for title, abstract, and full-text screens, with values of 0.845 (95% CI ¼ 0.82-0.86), 0.930 (95% CI ¼ 0.92-0.94), and 0.975 (95% CI ¼ 0.96-0.98), respectively.…”
Section: Eligibility Assessment and Study Selectionmentioning
confidence: 99%