3D kinematic in‐vitro comparison of posterolateral corner reconstruction techniques in a combined injury model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the variable injury pattern to the posterolateral structures (PLS) of the knee, a number of reconstructive procedures have been introduced. It was the aim of the present study to evaluate the resulting 3D kinematics following three different surgical techniques of reconstruction in a combined posterior cruciate ligament (PCL)/PLS injury model. In nine human cadaveric knees, 3D kinematics were recorded during the path of flexion-extension using a computer based custom made 6-degree-of-freedom (DOF) testing apparatus. Additional laxity tests were conducted at 30 and 90 degrees of flexion. Testing was performed before and after cutting the PLS and PCL, followed by PCL reconstruction alone. Reconstructing the posterolateral corner, three surgical techniques were compared: (a) the posterolateral corner sling procedure (PLCS), (b) the biceps tenodesis (BT), and (c) a bone patellar-tendon bone (BTB) allograft reconstruction. Posterior as well as rotational laxity were significantly increased after PCL/PLS transection at 30 and 90 degrees of flexion. Isolated PCL reconstruction resulted in a remaining external rotational deficiency for both tested flexion angles. Additional PLS reconstruction closely restored external rotation as well as posterior translation to intact values by all tested procedures. Compared to the intact knee, dynamic testing revealed a significant internal tibial rotation for (b) BT (mean=3.9 degrees, p=0.043) and for (c) BTB allograft (mean=4.3 degrees, p=0.012). (a) The PLCS demonstrated a tendency to internal tibial rotation between 0 and 60 degrees of flexion (mean=2.2 degrees, p=0.079). Varus/valgus rotation as well as anterior/posterior translation did not show significant differences for any of the tested techniques. The present study shows that despite satisfying results in static laxity testing, pathological 3D knee kinematics were not restored to normal, demonstrated by a nonphysiological internal tibial rotation during the path of flexion-extension.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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".