Twisting and Braiding Reduces the Tensile Strength and Stiffness of Human Hamstring Tendon Grafts Used for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Twisting and braiding of four-strand hamstring tendon grafts used for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction has been proposed, but not proven, as a method of improving tensile properties. HYPOTHESIS: Twisting and braiding four-strand human hamstring tendon grafts will have no significant effect on initial graft strength or stiffness. STUDY DESIGN: Paired in vitro biomechanical study. METHODS: In 12 matched cadaveric pairs, a doubled gracilis and semitendinosus tendon graft from one knee was twisted 180 degrees over a 30-mm length, while the doubled tendon graft from the contralateral knee was prepared for biomechanical testing with the graft strands in a parallel orientation. For an additional 12 matched pairs, a doubled graft was braided into a weave while the contralateral graft was prepared for testing in a parallel orientation. All four strands of each doubled tendon graft were equally tensioned with weights before being clamped in a tendon-freezing grip. Tensile testing was then performed. RESULTS: Twisting decreased graft strength by 26% (P < 0.01) and stiffness by 43% (P < 0.01), while braiding reduced strength by 46% (P < 0.01) and stiffness by 54% (P < 0.01), compared with parallel-oriented grafts. CONCLUSIONS: Equally tensioned, parallel four-strand human hamstring tendon grafts were significantly stronger and stiffer than twisted or braided four-strand hamstring tendon grafts. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: We caution against the use of twisted or braided four-strand hamstring tendon grafts for anterior cruciate ligament 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 | 0.000 | 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".