Graft Tensioning in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were to (1) perform a systematic review of randomized controlled trials evaluating graft tensioning in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, and (2) determine the scientific quality of published randomized controlled trials evaluating graft tensioning in ACL reconstruction. METHODS: The search strategy included a computerized literature search, a citation search, and a manual search of key journals and conference proceedings. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of graft tensioning on the outcomes of ACL reconstruction. Two reviewers independently performed the literature searches. The validity of the trials was scored using the Detsky quality scale. Consensus was achieved by a study committee of 3 investigators. RESULTS: Five randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. The mean standardized Detsky score was 61.3 +/- 15.2%. Only 2 of the studies scored >or=75%. All trials consisted of autogenous graft sources, with 3 involving a bone-patellar tendon-bone graft, 1 involving a 5-strand semitendinosus-polyester (5STP) graft, and 1 involving a semitendinosus-gracilis-polyester (STGP) graft. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the evidence in this systematic review, there is a trend that suggests that 80 N of tension is the most effective amount of tension to apply during ACL reconstruction using hamstring-polyester graft sources. For ACL reconstruction using semitendinosus-gracilis or patellar tendon graft sources, there is no clear trend in terms of statistically significant or clinically relevant differences in terms of the amount of applied tension to apply to the graft during graft fixation. We are unable to provide recommendations as to the amount of tension to apply to 4-strand semitendinosus-gracilis autografts without polyester augmentation because there has been no randomized clinical trial conducted to determine the most effective amount of tension to apply when using this graft source.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.045 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".