Knee dislocations: experience at the Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur de Montréal.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although many options exist for ligament reconstruction in knee dislocations, the optimal treatment remains controversial. Allografts and autografts have both been used to reconstruct the cruciate ligaments. We present the results of reconstruction using artificial ligaments at Hôpital du Sacré-Coeur in Montréal. METHODS: We reviewed the treatment of all patients with knee dislocations seen between June 1996 and October 1999. The Lysholm score, ACL-quality of life (QoL) questionnaire, physical examination and Telos instrumented laxity measurement were used to evaluate the results. RESULTS: Twenty patients (21 knees) participated in the study. The mean (and standard deviation [SD]) Lysholm score was 71.7 (18). Results from the ACL-QoL questionnaire showed a global impairment in QoL. Mean (and SD) range of motion and flexion were 118 degrees (10.9 degrees) and 2 degrees (2.9 degrees) respectively. Mean (and SD) radiologic laxity evaluated with Telos for the anterior and posterior cruciate ligaments were 6.1 (5.7) mm and 7.3 (4.5) mm respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Knee reconstruction with artificial ligaments shows promise, but further studies are necessary before it can be recommended for widespread use. This is the first study to show specifically a severe impairment in QoL in this patient population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".