MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139303314 · doi:10.1148/radiol.09091119

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction by Using Bioabsorbable Femoral Cross Pins: MR Imaging Findings at Follow-up and Comparison with Clinical Findings

2010· article· en· W2139303314 on OpenAlexaff
Ueli Studler, Lawrence M. White, Ali Naraghi, George Tomlinson, Monica Kunz, Gadi Kahn, Paul Marks

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHealth Sciences CentreUniversity Health NetworkSunnybrook Health Science CentreMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingAnterior cruciate ligamentPosterior cruciate ligamentNuclear medicineSurgeryRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To determine the frequency of imaging findings and complications related to bioabsorbable femoral cross pins at follow-up magnetic resonance (MR) imaging studies after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and compare these MR imaging findings with clinical evaluation findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review board approved this retrospective study, and informed consent was waived. Follow-up MR imaging studies (average, 26 months after surgery) in 218 patients with prior ACL reconstruction were retrospectively reviewed. Cross-pin fracture, posterior transcortical breach, migration, resorption, and lateral prominence of cross pins, as well as the cross-pin angle relative to the transepicondylar line, were investigated on MR images. The clinical evaluation included Lachman, anterior drawer, and pivot shift tests, as well as assessment for joint tenderness. RESULTS: Fracture, posterior transcortical breach, migration, and lateral prominence of cross pins were excluded from analysis when at least one cross pin was completely resorbed (n = 16 patients). Forty-five fractured cross pins were seen in 35 (17%) of 202 patients. The posterior femoral cortex was breached in 57 (28%) of 202 patients. Migration of fractured pin fragments occurred in 12 (6%) of 202 patients. There was a significant relationship between fractures and posterior breach of cross pins (P = .001), as well as between cross-pin angles and fractures (P = .002). Both cross pins were completely resorbed in 12 (6%) of 218 patients (average time since surgery, 53 months; range, 8-92 months). No significant association was found between any MR imaging finding related to cross pins and clinical test findings. CONCLUSION: Fracture and posterior transcortical breach of bioabsorbable femoral cross pins, commonly seen at follow-up MR imaging studies, do not correlate with clinical findings of joint instability or pain. Posteriorly angulated cross pins and posterior transcortical breach are significantly associated with cross-pin fractures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.369
Threshold uncertainty score0.747

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiologySame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207