Bone‐patellar tendon‐bone autograft versus hamstring autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the young athlete: a retrospective matched analysis with 2–10 year follow‐up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine clinical and patient-reported outcomes as well as return to sport in athletes younger than 25 following ACL reconstruction with either bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) or hamstring (HS) autografts using a matched-pairs case-control experimental design. METHODS: Twenty-three matched pairs were obtained based on gender (57% women), age (18 ± 3 years BTB vs. 18 ± 3 HS), and length of follow-up (5 ± 2 years BTB vs. 4 ± 2 HS). Patients reported participating in very strenuous (soccer, basketball, etc.) or strenuous (skiing, tennis, etc.) sporting activity 4-7 times/week prior to their knee injury. Patient-reported outcomes included return to play data, the IKDC, SAS, ADLS, and SF-36 forms. Clinical outcomes included knee range of motion, laxity, and hop/jump testing. RESULTS: The majority of patients in both groups were able to participate in very strenuous or strenuous sporting activity 4-7 times per week following surgery [17 (74%) BTB vs. 16 (70%) HS]. However, only 13 (57%) of the BTB subjects and 10 (44%) of the HS patients were able to return to pre-injury activity levels (P = n.s.). HS patients showed higher ADLS (P < 0.01) and SAS (P < 0.01) scores, better restoration of extension (P < 0.05), and less radiographic evidence of osteoarthritis (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Hamstring and bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts allow approximately 70% of young athletes to return to some degree of strenuous or very strenuous sporting activity, while only approximately half of patients were able to return to their pre-injury sporting activity level. Hamstring grafts lead to better preservation of extension, higher patient-reported outcome scores, and less radiographic evidence of osteoarthritis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic (case-control study) Level III.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".