Validation of the 65° Howell Guide for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To study in cadaver knees the position of the tibial tunnel in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using the 65 degrees Howell guide (Arthrotek, Ontario, CA). TYPE OF STUDY: Controlled laboratory study in vitro. METHODS: Twenty-one fresh-frozen cadaver knees were used. The ACL was resected and its tibial attachment was demarcated. To drill the guidewire, we used the Howell 65 degrees tibial guide, which references off of the intercondylar roof in extension to avoid impingement. The intra-articular position of the wire was digitized with a digital camera and referred to a transverse axis passing through the over-the-back position and a sagittal axis passing through the lateral aspect of the medial spine. The percentage position of the wire within the ACL attachment was also calculated, taking the posterior and medial limits as the 0% positions. RESULTS: All the wires were within the ACL attachment: 17 were in the ACL posterolateral bundle attachment and the other 4 in the anteromedial. The average distance of the wire from the transverse and sagittal axes was 12 mm (SD, 3 mm) anterior and 1 mm (SD, 1 mm) lateral, respectively. The wire was positioned at 38% (SD, 16%) of the length of the ACL attachment and at 40% (SD, 17%) of the width. Eighty percent of the wires were positioned at between 35% and 48% of the attachment length. CONCLUSIONS: The 65 degrees Howell guide, which positions the tibial tunnel in extension to avoid roof impingement, ensures anatomic positioning of the graft on the tibial side and reproducibility can be expected. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study proves that a commonly used drill guide succeeds in placing the ACL graft in the tibial anatomic attachment.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".