Analysis of Irradiation on the Clinical Effectiveness of Allogenic Tissue When Used for Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether the use of low-dose irradiation or other tissue-processing methods, such as preservation by fresh-frozen (FF), freeze-drying (FD), or cryopreservation (CP) methods, affects the clinical outcomes of primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using allograft. HYPOTHESIS: Low-dose gamma irradiation (<2.5 Mrad) and method of allograft preservation do not affect subjective and objective clinical outcomes after primary ACLR in studies reviewed between November 2010 and September 2012. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A computerized search of multiple electronic databases was conducted from November 2010 to September 2012 for prospective and retrospective studies involving primary allograft ACLR. Inclusion criteria were English-language publications with a minimum average of 2 years' follow-up. Studies were excluded if they involved revision surgery, open surgery, multiple ligament procedures, autograft, xenograft, meniscal allograft, skeletally immature patients, or grafts treated with ethylene oxide, Tutoplast, or irradiation>2.5 Mrad or if the tissue-processing methods were not specified. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Lysholm score, Tegner score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, KT-1000/2000 arthrometer score, Lachman test, and pivot-shift test, as well as by assessing complications related to graft rupture, revision surgery, and infections. RESULTS: A total of 21 publications met the criteria, involving a total of 1453 patients, with 415 irradiated and 1038 nonirradiated allografts. Mean follow-up was 49.8 months (range, 12-170 months). Mean age of the patients was 32.2 years. Knees with nonirradiated allografts had higher mean Lysholm scores (89.8 vs 84.4; P<.05), and a higher proportion of <5-mm difference on KT-1000/2000 arthrometer (0.97 vs 0.84; P<.0001), grade 0 and 1 pivot-shift (0.99 vs 0.94; P<.0001), and grade 0 and 1 Lachman (0.94 vs 0.89; P<.01) than those with irradiated grafts. Knees with irradiated allografts had a higher proportion of grade A and B IKDC outcomes (0.91 vs 0.86; P<.05) and revision surgery (0.0250 vs 0.0022; P<.001) compared with those with nonirradiated allografts. The lack of data for FD and CP allografts meant no statistical analysis could be made comparing FF versus FD versus CP allografts. The effect of irradiation was similar within FF allografts. The effect of graft type and surgical technique could not be determined because of insufficient data. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that primary ACLRs using nonirradiated allografts may provide superior clinical outcomes than those using low-dose (<2.5 Mrad) irradiated grafts.
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 | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".