Open and Arthroscopic Patellar Tenotomy for Chronic Patellar Tendinopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic patellar tendinopathy often requires surgical treatment. We compared the outcomes in 25 subjects (29 tendons) who had had open patellar tenotomy and 23 subjects (25 tendons) who had had arthroscopic patellar tenotomy at a mean follow-up of 3.8 and 4.3 years, respectively. At follow-up, outcomes in the open and arthroscopic groups were as follows: 1) symptomatic benefit was seen in 81% of open and 96% of arthroscopic tenotomy patients, 2) sporting success was seen in 54% of open and 46% of arthroscopic tenotomy patients, 3) median time to return to preinjury level of activity was 10 months for open and 6 months for arthroscopic tenotomy patients, and 4) median Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment score at follow-up was 88 for open and 77 for arthroscopic tenotomy patients. There were no significant differences between groups for all outcomes. The appearance of the tendon on sonography remained abnormal in over 70% of subjects at follow-up, and sonographic appearance did not correlate with clinical outcome. Thus, arthroscopic patellar tenotomy was as successful as the traditional open procedure. Both procedures provided virtually all subjects with symptomatic benefit, but only about half the subjects who underwent either open or arthroscopic patellar tenotomy were competing at their former sporting level at follow-up.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".