MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101861100 · doi:10.1177/0363546510379333

Knee Rotational Laxity in a Randomized Comparison of Single- Versus Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

2010· article· en· W2101861100 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Andrea Hemmerich, Willem van der Merwe, Marijka Batterham, Christopher L. Vaughan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Sports Medicine · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Research Foundation
KeywordsMedicineAnterior cruciate ligamentAnterior cruciate ligament reconstructionKnee JointRange of motionLigamentBundleAnterolateral ligamentSurgeryAnatomyOrthodonticsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: While single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction reduces anterior-posterior laxity, studies have demonstrated residual rotational instability. Improved pivot-shift results have been shown with the double-bundle graft; however, no study has compared rotational laxity outcome of these surgical techniques in vivo under quantified, isolated torsional loading. HYPOTHESIS: The anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knee exhibits greater rotational laxity than the contralateral uninjured knee. The double-bundle reconstruction restores rotational joint stability to a greater extent than single-bundle surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Rotational laxity of 32 patients with unilateral anterior cruciate ligament injury was assessed in both knees at full extension and 30° of flexion using a magnetic resonance imaging-compatible torsional loading device. Patients were randomly allocated either a single- or double-bundle reconstruction and reassessed 5 months after surgery. RESULTS: The anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knees demonstrated greater laxity to internal rotational torque in the extended position, but not in the 30° flexed position. No significant differences in rotational laxity were found between single- and double-bundle reconstructions. In extension, excessive internal rotational laxity of injured compared with contralateral knees was reduced by anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. The single-bundle reconstruction did not affect internal rotation compared with contralateral or preoperative groups. In response to internal rotational torque in the flexed knee position, the double-bundle reconstruction reduced laxity to 10.8° from the pre-operative value of 15.3° (P = .058); postoperative rotation was also significantly less than the contralateral laxity of 16.4° (P = .022). CONCLUSION: The ruptured anterior cruciate ligament resulted in increased internal rotational laxity only in the extended position. The single-bundle reconstruction did not affect rotational restraint compared with contralateral or preoperative groups. The double-bundle procedure significantly reduced internal laxity in the flexed position when compared with normal. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: As the anterior cruciate ligament is not the primary restraint to rotation, its contribution to joint stability is limited under isolated torsional load. While the double-bundle graft demonstrates superior rotational constraint, this may be excessive for isolated anterior cruciate ligament rupture.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.768
Threshold uncertainty score0.726

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207