MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2921842024 · doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2018.11.049

Patients With Failed Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Have an Increased Posterior Lateral Tibial Plateau Slope: A Case-Controlled Study

2019· article· en· W2921842024 sur OpenAlexfundno aff
Alberto Grassi, Cecilia Signorelli, Francisco Urrizola, Luca Macchiarola, Federico Raggi, Massimiliano Mosca, Kristian Samuelsson, Stefano Zaffagnini

Notice bibliographique

RevueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesMinistry of Health, British Columbia
Mots-clésMedicineSubluxationAnterior cruciate ligamentCondylePlateau (mathematics)AnatomyMagnetic resonance imagingOrthodonticsRadiologyMathematics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Purpose To compare knee anatomical parameters of patients with failed anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-R) with those of a control group of sex-matched patients with successful ACL-R. Methods Forty-three patients (34 male, 9 female) who experienced graft failure after ACL-R were enrolled in the failed group. These patients were matched to a control group of 43 patients who underwent primary ACL-R with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. On magnetic resonance imaging, the following parameters were evaluated: transepicondylar distance, lateral and medial femoral condyle widths, tibial plateau width, notch width index, and the ratio of width and height of the femoral notch, ratio between the height and depth of the lateral and medial femoral condyle, lateral and medial posterior tibial slopes, and anterior subluxation of the lateral and medial tibial plateau. Multivariate regression with backward elimination, including only the previously identified significant variables, defined the independent predictors for revision surgery. Results The anatomical variables that were significantly different between the 2 study groups were lateral and medial posterior tibial slopes, anterior subluxation of the lateral and medial tibial plateau, medial tibial plateau width, lateral tibial plateau width, medial femoral condyle width, and transepicondylar distance; however, the multivariate regression analysis identified the lateral posterior tibial slope (LTPs), the anterior subluxation of the medial tibial plateau, and the medial femoral condyle width as significant independent predictors (P < .05). The LPTs had the highest coefficient and the highest sensitivity (88%) and specificity (84%) to identify failures when considering the optimal cutoff value of 7.4°. Conclusions Several anatomical parameters have been identified that differ significantly between patients with failed ACL-R and those without a documented failure. The most accurate predictor of ACL failure was an LTPs >7.4°, with a sensitivity of 88% and specificity of 84%. Surgeons should consider measuring LTPs during preoperative assessment of ACL-injured patients, and patients with values >7.4° should be considered at high risk of ACL-R failure. Level of Evidence Level III retrospective prognostic trial. To compare knee anatomical parameters of patients with failed anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-R) with those of a control group of sex-matched patients with successful ACL-R. Forty-three patients (34 male, 9 female) who experienced graft failure after ACL-R were enrolled in the failed group. These patients were matched to a control group of 43 patients who underwent primary ACL-R with a minimum follow-up of 24 months. On magnetic resonance imaging, the following parameters were evaluated: transepicondylar distance, lateral and medial femoral condyle widths, tibial plateau width, notch width index, and the ratio of width and height of the femoral notch, ratio between the height and depth of the lateral and medial femoral condyle, lateral and medial posterior tibial slopes, and anterior subluxation of the lateral and medial tibial plateau. Multivariate regression with backward elimination, including only the previously identified significant variables, defined the independent predictors for revision surgery. The anatomical variables that were significantly different between the 2 study groups were lateral and medial posterior tibial slopes, anterior subluxation of the lateral and medial tibial plateau, medial tibial plateau width, lateral tibial plateau width, medial femoral condyle width, and transepicondylar distance; however, the multivariate regression analysis identified the lateral posterior tibial slope (LTPs), the anterior subluxation of the medial tibial plateau, and the medial femoral condyle width as significant independent predictors (P < .05). The LPTs had the highest coefficient and the highest sensitivity (88%) and specificity (84%) to identify failures when considering the optimal cutoff value of 7.4°. Several anatomical parameters have been identified that differ significantly between patients with failed ACL-R and those without a documented failure. The most accurate predictor of ACL failure was an LTPs >7.4°, with a sensitivity of 88% and specificity of 84%. Surgeons should consider measuring LTPs during preoperative assessment of ACL-injured patients, and patients with values >7.4° should be considered at high risk of ACL-R failure.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,115
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,716

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,005
Tête enseignante GPT0,236
Écart entre enseignants0,231 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations90
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related SurgeryMême sujetKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesTravaux en français237 207