Two to five year results of primary ACL reconstruction using doubled tibialis anterior allograft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the study was to report the 2-5 year results of primary ACL reconstruction with doubled tibialis anterior allograft. Seventy-three patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction with doubled tibialis anterior allografts with minimum 2 year follow-up were included in the study. Sixty-four patients were available for follow-up. The median age was 27 years (16-55). There were 33 men and 31 women. The median follow-up was 44.5 months (24-55 months). There were two complications, 1 DVT with subsequent PE, and 1 hardware problem. Four patients had failure of their graft, and six patients required repeat arthroscopy. The median Lysholm score was 88 (range 70-95), and the median Tegner activity score was 6.5 (range 3-10). The median IDKC was 92 (range 73-100). According to the IDKC score, 60% of patients were rated as excellent, 27% as good, and 13% as fair. A total of 25 were able to attend the clinical assessment. On KT-1000, 15 (60%) patients had less than 3 mm side-side difference. Eighteen patients (72%) had no pivot shift. ACL reconstruction with allograft tibialis anterior tendon provided good functional results with a low-failure rate at 2-5 years. There was a statistically significant difference in outcome between men and women, with men performing better on the Lysholm and the IDKC scales.
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) | 0.000 | 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".