Survey Study of Members of the Canadian Orthopaedic Association on the Natural History and Treatment of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe current preferences and opinions of members of the Canadian Orthopaedic Association (COA) pertaining to anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. DESIGN: Survey study. PARTICIPANTS: All orthopedic surgeon members of the COA residing in Canada were invited to participate. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary measure was a survey completed via an Internet-based survey manager. It was composed of 30 questions on the natural history of ACL-injured knees, and surgical and postsurgical treatment choices. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-three surgeons (50%) responded to the survey. One hundred forty-four performed ACL reconstruction in the past year. In terms of natural history, the only area of agreement was that hamstring and quadricep strength affects function in ACL-deficient knees (92%). A majority of surgeons indicated preference for hamstring autograft (73%), transtibial versus anteromedial portal for establishment of the femoral tunnel (70% vs 28%), and promotion of full weight bearing and range of motion immediately after surgery (72% and 75%, respectively). The most frequent surgeon-reported complication was tunnel widening (10%). A greater proportion of high-volume surgeons permitted earlier return to sport (P < 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: In the rapidly evolving area of ACL reconstruction, no recent surveys of opinions and preferences of Canadian orthopedic surgeons have been published. In addition to providing information from a Canadian perspective, the findings from this study will allow surgeons to evaluate a range of treatment decisions based on the general opinions of their colleagues and also highlights areas of dissimilarity that can be targeted for more extensive research.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".