Timing of Surgery of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature concerned with timing of surgery after anterior cruciate ligament injury. METHODS: A systematic electronic search in Medline through PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was carried out in October 2011. All English-language randomized controlled clinical trials, prospective comparative cohort studies, and prognostic and diagnostic studies published from January 1995 to August 2011 were eligible for inclusion. All articles addressing timing of surgery were eligible for inclusion regardless of injury-to-surgery interval, graft type, surgical technique, or rehabilitation. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist guided the reporting and data abstraction. Methodologic quality of all included articles was carefully assessed. RESULTS: We included 22 articles (3,583 patients) in the systematic review. Study design, research methodology, surgical technique, and outcome measurements differed greatly among included articles. The injury-to-surgery interval, classified as early and delayed, ranged from within 2 days to 7 months and 3 weeks to 24 years, respectively. Eight articles promoted early reconstruction, whereas the majority of articles found no difference in outcome between early and delayed surgery. Two articles were inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS: There were few or no differences in subjective and objective outcomes related to timing of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, systematic review of Level I and II studies.
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) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".