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

Adverse effects more frequent with bioabsorbable vs. metal screws in ACL reconstruction

Download
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Share
Reprints
Cite This
About
+ Favorites
Author Verified
Ace Report Cover
April 2014

Adverse effects more frequent with bioabsorbable vs. metal screws in ACL reconstruction

Vol: 3| Issue: 4| Number:39| ISSN#: 2564-2537
Study Type:Therapy
OE Level Evidence:2
Journal Level of Evidence:2

Meta-analysis comparing bioabsorbable versus metal interference screw for adverse and clinical outcomes in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014 Jan;22(1):142-53. doi: 10.1007/s00167-012-2340-8. Epub 2012 Dec 14.

Contributing Authors:
P Laupattarakasem M Laopaiboon W Kosuwon W Laupattarakasem

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

Synopsis

This meta-analysis summarized results from eleven randomized control trials (RCTs) involving 878 randomly allocated patients to investigate the use of bioabsorbable interference screws compared to metal interference screws in single bundle primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The study aimed to report adverse effects and clinical outcomes from different screw types after a mini...

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