Double Bundle Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in 100 Patients at a Mean 3 Years Follow up: Outcomes were Comparable to an Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructions
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objectives: 1) To report on the outcomes after double-bundle PCL reconstructions in isolated versus combined injuries and acute versus chronic PCL tears and 2) to compare the outcomes of isolated double-bundle PCL reconstruction (DB PCLR) to isolated ACL reconstruction (ACLR). Methods: All patients who underwent a primary arthroscopic assisted DB PCLR for grade-III isolated or combined PCL injuries between May 2010 and March 2015 were reviewed. Patient reported outcome scores (Lysholm, Tegner, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), 12 item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) Physical Component Summary (PCS) and patient satisfaction with outcome) and objective posterior stress radiographs were collected preoperatively and at a minimum of two years postoperatively. Cohort subanalyses comparing isolated versus combined, and acute versus chronic PCL reconstructions were also performed. Patients who underwent isolated ACLR over the same inclusion period were selected as a comparison group. Results: One hundred patients that underwent DB PCLR were included in this study. There were 31 isolated PCL injuries and 69 combined PCL injuries and the mean follow-up was 2.9 years (range 2-6 years). The median Tegner activity score improved from 2 to 5, Lysholm from 48 to 86, WOMAC from 35.5 to 5, and SF-12 PCS from 34 to 54.8 (all p values <0.001). The mean side-to-side difference (SSD) in posterior tibial translation on kneeling stress radiographs improved from 11.0 mm preoperatively to 1.6 mm postoperatively (p<0.001). There were no significant differences in postoperative functional scores between isolated PCL reconstructions and combined PCL reconstructions (all p values >0.229). The mean SSD in postoperative posterior tibial translation on stress radiographs was 1.2 ± 1.1 mm for isolated PCL tears and 1.7 ± 2.2 mm for combined PCL tears. The improvement in posterior tibial translation from preoperative to postoperative was significant for both the isolated and combined PCL injury groups (p<0.001). Only the Tegner score (p<0.001) and patient satisfaction (p=0.011) were significantly different postoperatively between acute and chronic reconstructions, both favoring acutely treated PCL injuries. The mean SSD in posterior tibial translation on stress radiographs improved from 11.6 ± 3.1 mm preoperatively to 1.9 ± 2.5 mm postoperatively (p<0.001) for acute PCL tears, and 10.3 ± 3.7 mm to 1.2 ± 1.0 mm (p<0.001) for chronic PCL tears. There were no significant differences in postoperative outcome scores between patients that underwent an isolated ACLR or isolated DB PCLR [all p values >0.064]. Conclusion: Significantly improved functional and objective outcomes were observed after anatomic-based DB PCLR at a mean 3 years follow-up, regardless of concomitant ligamentous pathology or timing to surgery. Posterior tibial translation was restored to near normal after DB PCLR. Additionally, contrary to previous reports, similar results were achieved compared to a control isolated ACLR cohort. [Table: see text][Figure: see text]
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 | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 ».