Long‐term follow‐up of ACL reconstruction with hamstring autograft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the differences in the incidence and severity of knee osteoarthritis (OA), joint space narrowing, knee laxity, and knee flexion and extension strength between an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)-reconstructed knee and the contralateral non-reconstructed limb. METHODS: Retrospective case series of patients from a single surgeon that had an ACL reconstruction with a semitendinosus/gracilis autograft more than 12 years ago. Outcome measures included radiographic analysis, International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Evaluation Form (IKDC), KT-1000, Tegner Activity Level Scale, Lysholm Knee Score, ACL quality of life score (ACL-QOL) and knee flexor/extensor strength. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients consented and sixty-eight (43 male, 25 female) were included for analysis. Average age (SD) at the time of surgery was 31.2 (±9.1) years. At follow-up of 14.6 (1.9) years, 9% had re-ruptured their ACL, whereas 5% ruptured the contralateral ACL. Reconstructed knees had a greater incidence and severity of OA (P < 0.01). Medial meniscus surgery was a strong predictor of OA. Seventy-five per cent scored a normal or nearly normal knee on the IKDC. The mean Lysholm score was 75.8% and Tegner Activity Level Scale scores decreased (P < 0.001) from the time of surgery. Knee extension strength was greater in the contralateral knee at speeds of 60°/s (P = 0.014) and 150°/s (P = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: Reconstructed knees have a greater incidence and severity of OA than non-reconstructed knees, which suggests degenerative changes are secondary to ACL rupture. Medial meniscus surgery is a strong predictor of OA. Despite this, 75% of patients reported good outcomes.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".