Using BPTB in the Reconstruction of ACL - Article Example

?Journal critique Number Basic Information about the Journal a. of the Journal Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc b. Publisher of the Journal Springer-Verlag c. Number of articles in the issue Volume 18, Issue 8, 20 Articles d. Is this a special edition No Are there Established guidelines for authors by the publisher? Yes, they are found on the Springer website e. Editor of the Journal Editor-in-Chief J. Karlsson, Sweden Assistant Editor-in-Chief R. Becker, Germany Senior Editor R. Verdonk, Belgium Associate Editors K. P. Benedetto, Austria M. Brittberg, Sweden J. Calder, United Kingdom A. Georgoulis, Greece P. Hardy, France R. J. Johnson, USA R. Siebold, Germany S. Werner, Sweden S. Zaffagnini, Italy Web Editor S. Kopf, Germany f. Is a yearly index available? Which Issue? Yes, this article is a yearly index for 2010 issue 8 g. Writing style used APA h. References Drogset, J. O., Strand, T., Uppheim, G., Odega'rd, B., Boe, A., & Grontvedt, T. (2010). Autologous patellar tendon and quadrupled hamstring grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective randomized multicenter review of different fixation methods. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 1085-1093. Summary of the Article In previous study results, ACL reconstruction using grafts from the bone patellar tendon bone (BPTB) has been proven to yield favorable results. Currently, it has become a common phenomenon for this type of reconstruction to use grafts from double-looped semi itendinosus gracilis (DLSG). However, the argument that arises is whether using BPTB in the reconstruction of ACL yields better results in ensuring a more stable knee with the pain shifting to anterior as compared to using DLSG grafts. It has also been noted in several studies that the functional scores for both tends to be similar. The main topic of study in this article is evaluation of both BPTB and DLSG grafts that are “aligned with metallic interference screws” and “Bone Mulch Screw together with WasherLoc fixation on the tibia” respectively. The study is multicenter with a sample of 115 patients whose isolated ACL ruptures were randomized into two groups, one of BPTB grafts and the other DLSG grafts. The patients were then reviewed after a period of one to two years by an independent observer. The results were drawn and analyzed statistically. In the resulting conclusion, it was proved that “ACL reconstruction using BPTB fixed with interference screws and DLSG fixed with Bone Mulch Screws on the femur and WasherLoc screws on the tibia” yielded satisfying almost similar results (Drogset, et al., 2010). The main weaknesses that were exhibited in the study were that there were low follow-ups revolving around 84 percent. Additionally, a point of concern was that there was a relatively large number of surgeons engaged in the study something that was not necessary. The negative outcome noted in the study was a significant loss of hamstring strength in the reconstructions group that used DLSG, which was the main reason for a less aggressive rehabilitation. Article Critique The paper is a significant contribution towards ACL reconstructions and it reveals some key important outcomes in using DLSG and BPTB grafts. Comparing the paper with previous studies, which have always favored BPTB, this study produces informative results that may help explain why it would be favorable to use BPTB despite the fact that the overall results are similar. The research is well planned with proper planning and drafting of a practical theoretical framework that is implemented throughout the study. The key research materials cited in the report range from papers done in 1977 to papers done in 2009 with most sources having been sourced between the years 2000 and 2001. In this perspective, the study can be termed as not a very current study considering the facts that it was done in 2009, which would be logical for of the research work analyzed are within 2005 to 2009. The problem statement of the study is as follows; “evaluates BPTB grafts fixed with metallic interference screws and DLSG grafts fixed with Bone Mulch Screw on the femur and WasherLoc fixation on the tibia” (Drogset, et al., 2010). This statement is clear, testable, and concise, which is directly derived from the theory of reviewing research in the article and from the study itself. Furthermore, it can be proved that informative conclusion can be drawn from the results of the study. The chosen participants are all relevant for the study, as they all have isolated ACL ruptures, which is the necessary condition for the reconstruction. All the instrumentation used in the study was appropriate for the study and the practical section was successful following the utilization of all the instruments. The problem comes in with the observation; the one to two year period is enough to produce desired results, but it was also a disadvantage of the study as the overall observation carried out was not as expected. The testing and treatment procedures were not comprehensively explained as some of the steps such as “The surgical technique with the DLSG graft” was not explained in detail rather it was referenced to another source. When we look at the statistical analysis, the study utilized a confidence level of 95 percent and a power of 90 percent, which was a sufficient parameter to yield desirable statistical analysis results. The results directly evaluate the stated problem by carrying out the necessary data analysis of the findings in the study. Apart from the missing data, this is attributed to the patients that were not evaluated due to unavailability, the rest if the data presentation is complete and is helpful towards drawing up useful conclusions. The figures generated by and tabulated in the study are all appropriate, however, one notable complexity is that the structure of the graphs is a bit complex and would be difficult to interpret, and making someone interested in the study to exclusively read the discussion to understand the graphs properly. The results are discussed in detail basing each detail on the results that were achieved from the study. The results relate directly to the problem and after reading the results and the discussion one would note that they are in correlation with each other. However, as much as someone can draw conclusions from the discussion to answer pending questions from previous theories and findings, the discussion still does not directly discuss issues in this perspective. Therefore, one will have to draw their own conclusion regarding previous finding and theories in general. There is a bit of speculation in the in the discussion where it assumes that the difference between the two grafts is a result of the reduced hamstring strength in the DLSG group. All the references in the article appear to be referenced using the correct APA format with the only missing section being a period at the end of the year and the end of the reference. It can also be noted that some of the references generally give the same theory and set of information therefore, their inclusion could have been avoided. In terms of in-text citation, the author uses numbers to cite the sources, which is not consistent with the APA citation style that has been used in referencing. The dates all appear to be correctly cited and in direct relation to the articles referenced. The Abstract gives a clear and brief overview of most of the parts in the article mentioning each section and a summary. However, the areas that the abstract misses to mention include the discussion and the methodology section. It does not clearly outline a brief overview of the methodology but instead emphasizes on giving more details on the results and conclusion. In terms of length, the abstract covers about 10 percent of the paper and gives a brief overview of almost each part of the paper. Bibliography Drogset, J. O., Strand, T., Uppheim, G., Odega'rd, B., Boe, A., & Grontvedt, T. (2010). Autologous patellar tendon and quadrupled hamstring grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective randomized multicenter review of different fixation methods. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 1085-1093. Read More