Generalized joint hypermobility does not influence clinical outcomes following isolated MPFL reconstruction for patellofemoral instability
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PURPOSE: Generalized joint hypermobility (GJH) has frequently been described as a risk factor for patellofemoral instability; however, only a few primary research studies have demonstrated any evidence of a relationship. The primary purpose of this study was to determine if isolated proximal soft tissue stabilization for patellofemoral instability is as successful in patients with GJH compared those without, as measured by disease-specific quality-of-life (QOL), symptom scores and functional outcomes. The secondary purpose was to determine if clinical and patient-reported outcomes were influenced by patient demographic factors in the presence of joint hypermobility. METHODS: Between 2009 and 2014, data were collected on 174/193 knees (92% follow-up) following an isolated medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction (MPFL-R). Patients with a Beighton score of 4 or greater were classified as positive for GJH, and any score of 3 or less was classified as negative. Pre- and post-operative Banff Patella Instability Instrument (BPII) scores were compared using a two-sample t test to determine the influence of GJH on QOL. The relationship between the Beighton score, and demographic and clinical factors was explored using correlational analysis. Functional testing including balance and single-leg hop testing was conducted 1 and 2 years post-operatively. Limb symmetry and mean limb-to-limb performance differences were calculated. RESULTS: In this cohort of isolated MPFL reconstructions, 55.1% had a positive Beighton score. There were seven surgical failures (3.6%). There was no evidence of a relationship between a positive Beighton score and pre-operative BPII scores, post-operative BPII scores or post-operative symptom scores. GJH did not correlate significantly with any post-operative functional testing measures. A positive Beighton score was inversely related to patient age and more prevalent in females. CONCLUSIONS: This study determined that the presence of GJH did not influence disease-specific quality of life, physical symptom score or functional outcomes following MPFL reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».