Knee strength deficits after hamstring tendon and patellar tendon anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the strength of the knee flexors and knee extensors after two surgical techniques of ACL reconstruction and compare them to an age and activity level matched control group. METHODS: Twenty-four subjects who had undergone ACL reconstruction greater than 1 yr previously were placed into one of two groups according to autograft donor site: patellar tendon (BPB; N = 8) and hamstring (H; N = 16), and compared with an active, control group (N = 30). Knee flexor and extensor strength was evaluated using isovelocity dynamometry (5 speeds, eccentric and concentric, 5-95 degrees ROM). Strength maps were used to graphically analyze strength over a broad operational domain of the neuromuscular system. Average strength maps were determined for each autograft group and compared with controls. A difference map (control minus graft group) and confidence (t-test) maps were used to quantitatively identify strength deficits. RESULTS: The combined ACL group (N = 24) revealed a global 25.5% extensor strength deficit, with eccentric regional (angle and velocity matched) deficits up to 50% of control. Strength deficits covered over 86% of the sampled strength map area (P < 0.01). These knee extensor strength deficits are greater than previously reported. In addition, the BPB group demonstrated a concentric, low velocity, knee extensor strength deficit at 60-95 degrees that was not observed in the H group. Significant graft site dependent, regional knee flexor deficits of up to 50% of control were observed for the H group. CONCLUSIONS: Strength deficits localized to specific contraction types and ranges of motion were demonstrated between the ACL and control groups that were dependent upon autograft donor site. Postoperative rehabilitation protocols specific to these deficits should be devised.
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".