Editorial Commentary: What Is the Best Graft Source for Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction?

Richard Kyle Martin; Bruce A. Levy

doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2018.08.043

Editorial Commentary: What Is the Best Graft Source for Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction?

Richard Kyle Martin
, Bruce A. Levy

Research output: Contribution to journal › Editorial › peer-review

4 Scopus citations

Abstract

In 2018, the best available evidence has failed to show any significant clinical or functional difference between autograft and allograft for posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Autograft patients may have higher complication rates. Both groups show good functional outcome after reconstruction.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	275-276
Number of pages	2
Journal	Arthroscopy - Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery
Volume	35
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2018.08.043
State	Published - Jan 2019
Externally published	Yes

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 Arthroscopy Association of North America

Publisher link

10.1016/j.arthro.2018.08.043

Find It

Find It at U of M Libraries

Cite this

@article{6379164ab5a44b81aa0798670ce7a4c7,

title = "Editorial Commentary: What Is the Best Graft Source for Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction?",

abstract = "In 2018, the best available evidence has failed to show any significant clinical or functional difference between autograft and allograft for posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Autograft patients may have higher complication rates. Both groups show good functional outcome after reconstruction.",

author = "Martin, \{Richard Kyle\} and Levy, \{Bruce A.\}",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2019 Arthroscopy Association of North America",

year = "2019",

month = jan,

doi = "10.1016/j.arthro.2018.08.043",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "35",

pages = "275--276",

journal = "Arthroscopy - Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery",

issn = "0749-8063",

publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Editorial Commentary

T2 - What Is the Best Graft Source for Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction?

AU - Martin, Richard Kyle

AU - Levy, Bruce A.

PY - 2019/1

Y1 - 2019/1

N2 - In 2018, the best available evidence has failed to show any significant clinical or functional difference between autograft and allograft for posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Autograft patients may have higher complication rates. Both groups show good functional outcome after reconstruction.

AB - In 2018, the best available evidence has failed to show any significant clinical or functional difference between autograft and allograft for posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Autograft patients may have higher complication rates. Both groups show good functional outcome after reconstruction.

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85058178398

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85058178398#tab=citedBy

U2 - 10.1016/j.arthro.2018.08.043

DO - 10.1016/j.arthro.2018.08.043

M3 - Editorial

C2 - 30611358

AN - SCOPUS:85058178398

SN - 0749-8063

VL - 35

SP - 275

EP - 276

JO - Arthroscopy - Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery

JF - Arthroscopy - Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery

IS - 1

ER -

Editorial Commentary: What Is the Best Graft Source for Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction?

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Publisher link

Find It

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this