Proximal tibial fracture following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: a biomechanical analysis of the tibial tunnel as a stress riser
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This is the first biomechanical study to examine the potential stress riser effect of the tibial tunnel or tunnels after ACL reconstruction surgery. In keeping with literature, the primary hypothesis tested in this study was that the tibial tunnel acts as a stress riser for fracture propagation. Secondary hypotheses were that the stress riser effect increases with the size of the tunnel (8 vs. 10 mm), the orientation of the tunnel [standard (STT) vs. modified transtibial (MTT)], and with the number of tunnels (1 vs. 2). METHODS: Tibial tunnels simulating both single bundle hamstring graft (8 mm) and bone-patellar tendon-bone graft (10 mm) either STT or MTT position, as well as tunnels simulating double bundle (DB) ACL reconstruction (7, 6 mm), were drilled in fourth-generation saw bones. These five experimental groups and a control group consisting of native saw bones without tunnels were loaded to failure on a Materials Testing System to simulate tibial plateau fracture. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in peak load to failure between any of the groups, including the control group. The fracture occurred through the tibial tunnel in 100 % of the MTT tunnels (8 and 10 mm) and 80 % of the DB tunnels specimens; however, the fractures never (0 %) occurred through the tibial tunnel of the standard tunnels (8 or 10 mm) (P = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: In the biomechanical model, the tibial tunnel does not appear to be a stress riser for fracture propagation, despite suggestions to the contrary in the literature. Use of a standard, more vertical tunnel decreases the risk of ACL graft compromise in the event of a fracture. This may help to inform surgical decision making on ACL reconstruction technique.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".