Managing Anterior Cruciate Ligament Deficiency in the Skeletally Immature Individual: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of the literature to answer whether early ACL reconstruction for a skeletally immature individuals result in improved outcome compared with nonsurgical treatment or delaying the reconstruction until skeletal maturity in the pediatric athlete. DATA SOURCES: Articles were restricted to the English language, and 6 databases were searched (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, ACP Journal Club, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews). The following keywords were used: anterior cruciate ligament, ACL, child, immature, pediatric, pediatric, and young. SELECTION CRITERIA: All studies examining the ACL reconstruction in skeletally immature individuals, including citations describing complications. Excluded were articles looking at ACL repairs and ACL avulsion injuries. All types of study design, including review articles, were included. Comparative studies were reviewed in detail and analyzed qualitatively. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: A total of 615 articles were identified. Sixty-six articles met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. There were no articles with levels of evidence better than level III. The majority of the articles represented case series and reviews with expert opinion. RESULTS: There were 7 articles that provided comparisons between surgical and nonsurgical treatment in order to answer the question. CONCLUSIONS: The study designs are inadequate to answer the question of whether early or delayed ACL reconstruction results in the best possible outcome in skeletally immature individuals. Future prospective studies are required to answer the question adequately. A proposed algorithm was described to deal with the question.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".