MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001872809 · doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2013.07.273

Preoperative Patient and Injury Factors of Successful Rehabilitation After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Single‐Bundle Techniques

2013· review· en· W2001872809 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eduard J. de Valk, Maarten H. Moen, Marinus Winters, Eric W.P. Bakker, Rob Tamminga, H. van der Hoeven

Bibliographic record

VenueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersArthrex
KeywordsMedicineAnterior cruciate ligamentAnterior cruciate ligament reconstructionRehabilitationConcomitantMeta-analysisQuality of life (healthcare)LigamentPhysical therapyACL injuryStrictly standardized mean differenceSurgeryRandomized controlled trialInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The aim of this systematic review was to determine which patient determinants and injury factors, before anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by arthroscopic single-bundle techniques, affect postoperative rehabilitation. METHODS: A search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Clinical Trials was performed up to February 2013. After application of our inclusion criteria, a final selection was made based on studies' methodologic score assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analysis was planned for each prognostic factor when data were considered clinically and statistically homogeneous. RESULTS: Meta-analysis showed that male patients have better functional outcomes. Qualitative synthesis from 18 high-quality studies showed that patients operated on before 30 years of age reach higher activity levels. Patients with high baseline body mass index have lower activity levels after surgery. Smoking results in more symptoms and lower activity levels and subjective scores. Reconstruction before 3 months results in higher activity levels. Preoperatively, a less than 20% quadriceps strength difference, 50° of tibial external rotation or less, absence of flexion deficits, low knee influence on the patient's activity level, and less anterior knee pain result in higher functional scores. Preoperative anterior laxity difference does not predict functional scores. The prognostic value of preoperative activity and competition level for postoperative functional outcome is controversial. Patients with concomitant meniscal injuries have worse functional outcomes. The prognostic value of concomitant chondral pathology for postoperative functional outcome is controversial. Collateral ligament injury could predict functional scores or activity level. CONCLUSIONS: Male gender, patient age younger than 30 years, reconstruction before 3 months, and high baseline activity level contribute to better functional outcomes. Smoking, high body mass index, quadriceps strength, and range-of-motion deficits affect rehabilitation negatively. Preoperative anterior laxity does not influence rehabilitation. The role of preoperative prognostic injury factors remains unclear because of limited evidence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of Level II and III studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.009
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations78
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related SurgerySame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207