Management of the Contaminated Anterior Cruciate Ligament Graft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This systematic review explores management strategies for intraoperative anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft contamination. METHODS: Two databases (Medline and EMBASE) were screened for studies involving ACL graft contamination published between 1946 and April 2013. We included studies evaluating the management of a contaminated graft and excluded small case-series studies. We conducted a full-text review of eligible studies, and the references were searched for additional eligible studies. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to the searched studies. RESULTS: Our search yielded 6 laboratory investigations with a total of 495 graft samples used. These samples were contaminated and cleansed by various methods. The most successful sterilization protocols used chlorhexidine or mechanical agitation with a polymyxin B-bacitracin solution to achieve sterility in 100% of their respective experimental graft tissues. A chlorhexidine soak and plain bacitracin soak were also effective, at 97.5% and 97%, respectively. Povidone-iodine and an antibiotic soak of polymyxin-bacitracin were the least effective, with sterility rates of 48% and 57%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review suggest that the optimal agent for sterilizing a dropped graft is chlorhexidine. A protocol of mechanical agitation and serial dilution with a polymyxin B-bacitracin solution was also highly effective; however, the sample size was too small to realistically recommend its use. Bacitracin alone was also found to be an effective sterilization agent, as was a combined solution of neomycin and polymyxin B. Pooled results showed that normal saline solution, povidone-iodine, and a polymyxin B-bacitracin solution all yielded suboptimal sterilization. The available evidence, however, is laboratory based and may not accurately reflect clinical conditions; moreover, there is a lack of biomechanical studies evaluating sterilized grafts. As a result, the findings should be interpreted with caution. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of basic science 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".