Functional outcomes of bone tendon bone versus soft tissue arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. A comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare functional outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using 2 graft techniques and to determine factors affecting these outcomes. METHODS: Thirty-four consecutive patients with ACL injuries surgically treated at King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia between November 2003 and February 2011 were retrospectively assessed. Reconstruction was with bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft in 16 patients (BPTB group) and hamstring soft tissue autograft in 18 patients (ST group). Data were collected at an average of 3.5+/-1.75 years post-operatively, which included Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, and an 18 point questionnaire. RESULTS: The final mean WOMAC score was 82 in the BPTB group, and 80 in the ST group. The mean IKDC score was 71 in the BPTB group, and 65 in the ST group (p>0.05). Twenty-one patients (61.8%) returned to their pre-injury level of activity after surgery (47.6% in BPTB group, and 52.4% in the ST group) and 27 patients (79.4%) returned to the same job (10 in BPTB group, and 17 in ST group [p=0.021]). No differences were noted between the 2 groups with regard to anterior knee pain, or patello-femoral symptoms (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Similar outcomes were noted with similar numbers returning to sports. Concerns of anterior knee pain and patello-femoral symptoms associated with BPTB grafts did not affect outcomes related to cultural and religious functions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".