Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10397/92962
PIRA download icon_1.1View/Download Full Text
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributorDepartment of Biomedical Engineeringen_US
dc.contributorMainland Development Officeen_US
dc.creatorLi, Nen_US
dc.creatorXue, Xen_US
dc.creatorTu, Hen_US
dc.creatorZhang, Men_US
dc.creatorHe, Cen_US
dc.date.accessioned2022-05-26T02:34:46Z-
dc.date.available2022-05-26T02:34:46Z-
dc.identifier.issn2040-2295en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10397/92962-
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherHindawi Publishing Corporationen_US
dc.rightsCopyright © 2021 Ning Li et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.en_US
dc.rightsThe following publication Li, N., Xue, X., Tu, H., Zhang, M., & He, C. (2021). Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with Hybrid Graft versus Autograft: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Healthcare Engineering, 2021, 7562649 is available at https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/7562649en_US
dc.titleAnterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hybrid graft versus autograft : a systematic review and meta-analysisen_US
dc.typeJournal/Magazine Articleen_US
dc.identifier.volume2021en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1155/2021/7562649en_US
dcterms.abstractBackground. The standard surgical treatment for ACL tear is ACL reconstruction. There is a debate of a choice between autograft or hybrid graft for treating ACL reconstruction. The purpose of this paper is to compare both case scenarios.en_US
dcterms.abstractMethods. A lot of libraries were searched like PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE Library for clinical trials which were then compared and analyzed via meta-analysis. The systematic review and meta-analysis were performed as per PRISMA guidelines, and RevMan software was used to perform the meta-analysis.en_US
dcterms.abstractResults. We analyzed 6 studies where patients of both autograft and hybrid graft were studied. The study outcomes, graft failures, graft diameters, reoperations, and so on were compared via forest plot and funnel plot. No significant difference was noted in both cases.en_US
dcterms.abstractConclusions. In this meta-analysis, the performance of both autograft and hybrid graft was similar. Though the diameters were larger in hybrid, other factors also had an influence like graft failures, reoperations, and age at reconstruction which must be further investigated in detail.en_US
dcterms.accessRightsopen accessen_US
dcterms.bibliographicCitationJournal of healthcare engineering, 2021, v. 2021, 7562649en_US
dcterms.isPartOfJournal of healthcare engineeringen_US
dcterms.issued2021-
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85117388943-
dc.identifier.pmid34659692-
dc.identifier.eissn2040-2309en_US
dc.identifier.artn7562649en_US
dc.description.validate202205 bcfcen_US
dc.description.oaVersion of Recorden_US
dc.identifier.FolderNumberBME-0254-
dc.description.pubStatusPublisheden_US
dc.identifier.OPUS60023220-
dc.description.oaCategoryCCen_US
Appears in Collections:Journal/Magazine Article
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
7562649.pdf2.45 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
Open Access Information
Status open access
File Version Version of Record
Access
View full-text via PolyU eLinks SFX Query
Show simple item record

Page views

102
Last Week
0
Last month
Citations as of Nov 9, 2025

Downloads

87
Citations as of Nov 9, 2025

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

2
Citations as of Dec 19, 2025

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

2
Citations as of Dec 18, 2025

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.