A review of ski injuries resulting in combined injury to the anterior cruciate ligament and medial collateral ligaments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alpine skiing is a global winter recreational sport with 15 million participants in the United States alone, and an overall injury rate of 2.5 per 1,000 ski person-days. Isolated injury to the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) or the medial collateral ligament (MCL) is common among ski injuries; however, combined injury to these structures is rare. Controversy in the management of ACL instability following alpine ski injury is diminishing with improvements in the techniques of intra-articular cruciate reconstruction. However, the management of the combined ACL-MCL injury remains something of an enigma. Evidence exists to support both surgical and nonsurgical management strategies for the medial structures, but little consensus exists for the timing of the repair. This paper highlights the mechanisms of ski injuries that can result in combined injury to the ACL and MCL. The anatomy and biomechanics of the medial complex as it relates both to stability and operative repair are reviewed, and literature on the techniques and indications used for MCL repair in the setting of a combined injury is presented. On the basis of this review, we believe that an injury to the MCL does not need to be repaired if the ACL is reconstructed after a combined injury.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".