Biomechanical Analysis of Simulated Clinical Testing and Reconstruction of the Anterolateral Ligament of the Knee
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anatomic anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction has been proposed to assist anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in controlling anterolateral rotational laxity of the knee. However, the biomechanical effects have not been reported. PURPOSE: (1) To investigate the effect of ALL transection on rotational knee kinematics and (2) to determine the effect on knee biomechanics of ALL reconstruction procedures compared with lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET). STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: A total of 12 cadaveric knee specimens were tested in the following sequence: (1) ACLintact, (2) anteromedial bundle of ACL sectioned (ACLamb), (3) complete ACL sectioned (ACLfull), (4) ALL sectioned (ALLsec), (5) anatomic ALL reconstruction (ALLanat), and (6) LET. Biomechanical anterior drawer and Lachman tests were performed in which a 90-N load was applied to the posterior tibia, and anterior translation was measured. A combined load to simulate the early phase of the pivot-shift test was executed in which a 5-N·m internal rotation moment was applied to a fully extended knee; anterior translation and internal rotation were measured. RESULTS: Anterior translation increased across conditions for the biomechanical tests. Internal rotation during the simulated early-phase pivot-shift test was significantly different between ACLfull and ALLsec. Anatomic ALL reconstruction did not significantly reduce internal rotation or anterior translation during the simulated early-phase pivot-shift test. After LET, a significant decrease in anterior translation was found. There was no evidence of overconstraint of the knee with either anatomic ALL reconstruction or LET. CONCLUSION: The ALL demonstrated a role in controlling anterolateral laxity. LET had a composite effect in governing both anterior and rotational laxity. Anatomic ALL reconstruction did not reduce anterolateral rotational laxity. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Profiling the biomechanical characteristics of anterolateral reconstruction is integral to understanding the implications and potential benefit of such an additional procedure to ACL reconstruction.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".