MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2177116534 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.m.00393

The Risk of Knee Arthroplasty Following Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

2014· article· en· W2177116534 on OpenAlexaffabout
Timothy Leroux, Darrell Ogilvie‐Harris, Tim Dwyer, Jaskarndip Chahal, Rajiv Gandhi, Nizar N. Mahomed, David Wasserstein

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreToronto Western HospitalUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOsteoarthritisArthroplastyAnterior cruciate ligament reconstructionCruciate ligamentAnterior cruciate ligamentPopulationUnicompartmental knee arthroplastyPosterior cruciate ligamentSurgeryLigamentCohortKnee JointInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Evidence regarding the risk of end-stage osteoarthritis following cruciate ligament reconstruction is based upon small sample sizes and radiographic, rather than clinical, criteria. The goals of this study were to determine the risk of knee arthroplasty, a surrogate for end-stage osteoarthritis, following cruciate ligament reconstruction, and to identify patient, provider, and surgical factors that influence knee arthroplasty risk. METHODS: Using administrative databases, we identified all patients who were sixteen to sixty years of age and had undergone cruciate ligament reconstruction in Ontario from July 1993 to March 2008. Case patients were matched by demographic variables to five individuals without knee injury from the general population of Ontario, Canada, who had not undergone previous knee surgery, including cruciate ligament reconstruction. The main outcome was knee arthroplasty. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were generated for both cohorts. A Cox proportional hazards model determined those factors that influenced knee arthroplasty risk. RESULTS: We identified 30,301 eligible patients who had undergone cruciate ligament reconstruction; of these patients, 30,277 were matched to 151,362 individuals from the general population; the median patient age was twenty-eight years and 65% of the patients were male. Primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction accounted for >98% of index cases. During the follow-up period, there was a significant difference (p < 0.001) between matched case and control cohorts with respect to the number of patients who underwent knee arthroplasty during the study period; in the matched case cohort, 209 patients underwent knee arthroplasty (event rate, 0.68 of 1000 person-years), and in the control cohort, 125 patients underwent knee arthroplasty (event rate, 0.10 of 1000 person-years). Moreover, fifteen years after cruciate ligament reconstruction (case cohort) or study enrollment (control cohort), there was a significant difference (p < 0.001) in the cumulative incidence of knee arthroplasty between the case cohort (1.4%) and the control cohort (0.2%). Age of fifty years or more (hazard ratio, 37.28; p < 0.001), female sex (hazard ratio, 1.58; p = 0.001), comorbidity score of ≥5 points (hazard ratio, 5.91; p = 0.002), surgeon annual volume of cruciate ligament reconstruction of twelve or fewer cases per year (hazard ratio, 2.53; p < 0.001), and cruciate ligament reconstruction undertaken in university-affiliated hospitals (hazard ratio, 1.51, p = 0.008) increased the odds of knee arthroplasty; however, male sex (hazard ratio, 0.63; p = 0.001) and patient age of less than twenty years (hazard ratio, 0.07; p = 0.009) were protective. Concurrent meniscal repair or debridement did not increase arthroscopy risk. CONCLUSIONS: After fifteen years, the cumulative incidence of knee arthroplasty following cruciate ligament reconstruction was low (1.4%); however, it was seven times greater than the cumulative incidence of knee arthroplasty among matched control patients from the general population (0.2%). Older age, female sex, higher comorbidity, low surgeon annual volume of cruciate ligament reconstruction, and cruciate ligament reconstruction performed in a university-affiliated hospital were factors that increased knee arthroplasty risk.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.873
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations79
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Joint SurgerySame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207