Patellar Tendon Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in the High‐Demand Patient: Evaluation of Autograft Versus Allograft Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study sought to compare patient-reported and objective outcomes in high-demand patients after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with either patellar tendon allograft or autograft by use of a matched-pairs case-control experimental design. METHODS: Nineteen matched pairs were obtained based on gender (36.8% female patients), age (27.9 +/- 8.1 years in autograft group v 28.1 +/- 9.1 years in allograft group), and length of follow-up (9.1 +/- 2.7 years in autograft group v 10.3 +/- 2.6 years in allograft group). All patients reported participating in very strenuous (soccer, basketball, and so on) or strenuous (skiing, tennis, and so on) sporting activity 4 to 7 times per week before their knee injury. Patient-reported outcomes included the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form, Activities of Daily Living and Sports Activity Scales of the Knee Outcome Survey, and Short Form 36. Clinical evaluation included knee range of motion, laxity, and functional strength. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in gender, age, or body mass index. There was a slight difference in length of follow-up (P < .05). The groups showed no statistically significant differences in any of the patient-reported or objective outcome measures. More autograft patients reported that they were able to perform very strenuous activity without the sense of instability (14 v 7), but this difference only approached statistical significance (P < .07). Twelve autograft patients were able to return to preinjury levels of sporting activity compared with ten allograft patients. Sixteen autograft patients and twelve allograft patients were able to participate in strenuous or very strenuous sporting activity at follow-up. Both differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Autograft and fresh-frozen allograft patellar tendon anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction exhibit similar patient-reported and objective outcomes in high-demand individuals at 3 to 14 years' follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic case-control study.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".