Isokinetic Evaluation of Internal/External Tibial Rotation Strength after the Use of Hamstring Tendons for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evaluation of the knee after an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with the use of the semitendinosus and gracilis (hamstring) autografts has primarily focused on flexion and extension strength. The semitendinosus and gracilis muscles contribute to internal tibial rotation, and it has been suggested that harvest of these tendons for the purpose of an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction contributes to internal tibial rotation weakness. HYPOTHESIS: Internal tibial rotation strength may be affected by the semitendinosus and gracilis harvest after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective evaluation of internal and external tibial rotation strength. METHODS: Inclusion criteria for subjects (N = 30): unilateral anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction at least 2 years previously, a stable anterior cruciate ligament (<5-mm side-to-side difference) at time of testing confirmed by surgeon and KT-1000 arthrometer, no history of knee problems after initial knee reconstruction, a normal contralateral knee, and the ability to comply with the testing protocol. In an attempt to minimize unwanted subtalar joint motion, subjects were immobilized using an ankle brace and tested at angular velocities of 60 degrees /s, 120 degrees /s, and 180 degrees /s at a knee flexion angle of 90 degrees . RESULTS: The mean peak torque measurements for internal rotation strength of the operative limb (60 degrees /s, 17.4 +/- 4.5 ft-lb; 120 degrees /s, 13.9 +/- 3.3 ft-lb; 180 degrees /s, 11.6 +/- 3.0 ft-lb) were statistically different compared to the nonoperated limb (60 degrees /s, 20.5 +/- 4.7 ft-lb; 120 degrees /s, 15.9 +/- 3.8 ft-lb; 180 degrees /s, 13.4 +/- 3.8 ft-lb) at 60 degrees /s (P = .012), 120 degrees /s (P = .036), and 180 degrees /s (P = .045). The nonoperative limb demonstrated greater strength at all speeds. The mean torque measurements for external rotation were statistically similar when compared to the nonoperated limb at all angular velocities. CONCLUSIONS: We have shown through our study that patients who undergo surgical intervention to repair a torn anterior cruciate ligament with the use of autogenous hamstring tendons demonstrate with weaker internal tibial rotation postoperatively at 2 years when compared to the contralateral limb.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".