Rehabilitation after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Comparison of Programs Administered over 2 Different Time Intervals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are adverse effects associated with immobilization of the knee after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, yet very little is known about how much activity will promote adequate rehabilitation without permanently elongating the graft, producing graft failure, or creating damage to articular cartilage. HYPOTHESIS: Rehabilitation with either an accelerated or nonaccelerated program produces no difference in anterior-posterior knee laxity, clinical assessment, patient satisfaction, functional performance, and the synovial fluid biomarkers of articular cartilage metabolism. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled clinical trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: Twenty-five patients who tore their anterior cruciate ligament were enrolled and underwent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Patients were randomized to accelerated rehabilitation or nonaccelerated rehabilitation. At the time of surgery and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months later, measurements of anterior-posterior knee laxity, clinical assessment, patient satisfaction, functional performance, and cartilage metabolism were completed. RESULTS: At the 2-year follow-up, there was no difference in the increase of anterior knee laxity relative to the baseline values that were obtained immediately after surgery between the 2 groups (2.2-mm vs 1.8-mm increase relative to the normal knee). The groups were similar in terms of clinical assessment, patient satisfaction, activity level, function, and response of the bio-markers. After 1 year of healing, synthesis of collagen and turnover of aggrecan remained elevated in both groups. CONCLUSION: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a bone-patellar tendon-bone graft followed by either accelerated or nonaccelerated rehabilitation produces the same increase of anterior knee laxity. Both programs had the same effect in terms of clinical assessment, patient satisfaction, functional performance, and the biomarkers of articular cartilage metabolism. There is concern that the cartilage biomarkers remained elevated for an extended period.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".