Anterolateral Knee Extra-articular Stabilizers: A Robotic Study Comparing Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction and Modified Lemaire Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Persistent clinical instability after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction may be associated with injury to the anterolateral structures and has led to renewed interest in anterolateral extra-articular procedures. The influence of these procedures on knee kinematics is controversial. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to investigate the biomechanical properties of anatomic anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction and a modified Lemaire procedure (lateral extra-articular tenodesis [LET]) in combination with ACL reconstruction as compared with isolated ACL reconstruction in the setting of deficient anterolateral structures (ALL and Kaplan fibers). It was hypothesized that both techniques would reduce tibial internal rotation when combined with ACL reconstruction in the setting of anterolateral structure deficiency. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: A 6 degrees of freedom robotic system was used to assess tibial internal rotation, a simulated pivot-shift test, and anterior tibial translation in 10 paired fresh-frozen cadaveric knees. The following states were tested: intact; sectioned ACL, ALL, and Kaplan fibers; ACL reconstruction; and an anterolateral extra-articular procedure (various configurations of ALL reconstruction and LET). Knees within a pair were randomly assigned to either ALL reconstruction or LET with a graft tension of 20 N and a randomly assigned fixation angle (30° or 70°). ALL reconstruction was then repeated and secured with a graft tension of 40 N. RESULTS: In the setting of deficient anterolateral structures, ACL reconstruction was associated with significantly increased residual laxity for tibial internal rotation (up to 4°) and anterior translation (up to 2 mm) laxity as compared with the intact state. The addition of ALL reconstruction or LET after ACL reconstruction significantly reduced tibial internal rotation in most testing scenarios to values lower than the intact state (ie, overconstraint). Significantly greater reduction in laxity with internal rotation and pivot-shift testing was found with the LET procedure than ALL reconstruction when compared with the intact state. Combined with ACL reconstruction alone, both extra-articular procedures restored anterior tibial translation to values not significantly different from the intact state with most testing scenarios (usually within 1 mm). CONCLUSION: Residual laxity was identified after isolated ACL reconstruction in the setting of ALL and Kaplan fiber deficiency, and the combination of ACL reconstruction in this setting with either ALL reconstruction or the modified Lemaire LET procedure resulted in significant reductions in tibiofemoral motion at most knee flexion angles, although overconstraint was also identified. ALL reconstruction and LET restored anterior tibial translation to intact values with most testing states. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: ALL reconstruction and lateral extra-articular tenodesis have been described in combination with intra-articular ACL reconstruction to address rotational laxity. This study demonstrated that both procedures resulted in significant reductions of tibial internal rotation versus the intact state independent of graft tension or fixation angle, although anterior tibial translation was generally restored to intact values. The influence of overconstraint with anterolateral knee reconstruction procedures has not been fully evaluated in the clinical setting and warrants continued evaluation based on the findings of this biomechanical study.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».