Activity Level and Function After Lateral Ankle Ligament Repair Versus Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few studies have compared outcomes of Broström-Gould repair and allograft reconstruction. HYPOTHESIS/PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes and revision rates after Broström-Gould lateral ankle ligament repair versus anatomic allograft reconstruction in patients with lateral ankle instability. The hypothesis was that patients who underwent lateral ankle ligament repair would have outcomes and revision rates similar to those of patients who underwent anatomic allograft reconstruction. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: All patients who underwent surgical repair or reconstruction of the anterior talofibular ligament and/or the calcaneofibular ligament by a single surgeon between September 2009 and February 2013 were included in this study. Patients completed a subjective questionnaire at minimum 2 years after ankle surgery. Outcomes measures included the Foot and Ankle Disability Index (FADI), American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Ankle-Hindfoot Score, Lysholm score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), Short Form-12 Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores, Tegner activity scale, and patient satisfaction with outcome. Detailed surgical data and intraoperative findings were documented at the time of surgery. All data were collected prospectively and reviewed retrospectively. RESULTS: A total of 86 patients were included in this study: 45 men and 41 women (mean age, 38 years; range, 19-68 years) with a mean body mass index of 26.5 (range, 17.5-47.1). There were 61 (71%) patients in the repair cohort and 25 (29%) in the reconstruction cohort. There was no significant difference in age or sex between cohorts. Seventy-six (88%) patients had minimum 2-year follow-up (mean follow-up, 3.0 years; range, 2.0-5.3 years). There was no significant difference in FADI (87 vs 91; P = .553), AOFAS (77 vs 82; P = .372), Lysholm score (83 vs 87; P = .110), Tegner activity scale (6 vs 4; P = .271), patient satisfaction (9 vs 10; P = .058), WOMAC (8 vs 5; P = .264), or Short Form-12 PCS (51.3 vs 54.6; P = .169) or MCS (54.8 vs 51.5; P = .239) score between the repair cohort and the reconstruction cohort, respectively. No patient in either cohort underwent revision lateral ligament surgery. CONCLUSION: When compared with lateral ankle repair, anatomic allograft reconstruction produced similarly favorable outcomes, including high patient satisfaction, high function and activity levels, and no revision surgeries in either cohort.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".