MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327663387 · doi:10.1097/jsm.0000000000000165

A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Patellar Tendon, Hamstring Tendon, and Double-Bundle ACL Reconstructions

2014· article· en· W2327663387 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas G. Mohtadi, Denise Chan, Rhamona Barber, Elizabeth Oddone Paolucci

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of Sport Medicine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePatellar tendonHamstringRandomized controlled trialTendonPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To compare 3 anatomically positioned autografts for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, by measuring patient-reported disease-specific quality of life at 2 years postoperatively. DESIGN: Double-blinded, randomized clinical trial with intraoperative computer-generated treatment allocation. Patients and an independent trained evaluator were blinded. SETTING: University-based orthopedic referral practice. PATIENTS: Three hundred thirty patients (14-50 years; 183 male patients) with isolated ACL deficiency were equally randomized to: (1) patellar tendon, PT: 28.7 years (SD = 9.7); (2) quadruple-stranded hamstring tendon, HT: 28.5 years (SD = 9.9); and (3) double bundle using HT, DB: 28.3 years (SD = 9.8); 322 patients completed 2-year follow-up. INTERVENTION: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using PT, HT, or DB autografts. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Measured at baseline, 1 and 2 years postoperatively-primary: anterior cruciate ligament quality-of-life scores; secondary: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, KT-1000 arthrometer, pivot shift, range of motion, Tegner activity, Cincinnati Occupational Scale, and single-leg hop. Proportions of correct graft type guesses by the patients and evaluator assessed blinding effectiveness. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were not different. Anterior cruciate ligament quality-of-life scores increased over time for all groups (P = 0.001) but were not different at 2 years (P = 0.591): PT = 84.6 (SD = 16.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 81.4-87.8), HT = 82.5 (SD = 17.7, 95% CI = 79.2-85.9), and DB = 82.4 (SD = 17.5, 95% CI = 79.1-85.7). Two-year KT-1000 side-to-side differences (PT = 1.86 mm; HT = 2.97 mm; DB = 2.65 mm) were statistically significant between PT-HT (P = 0.002) and PT-DB (P = 0.044). The remaining secondary outcomes were not statistically different. Correct graft type guesses occurred 51% of the time for patients and 46% for the evaluator. CONCLUSIONS: Two-year disease-specific quality-of-life outcome was not different between the ACL reconstruction techniques. The PT reconstructions had significantly lower side-to-side differences on static stability measures. Patient and evaluator blinding was achieved. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1 (Therapeutic Studies). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This high-quality, large, double-blind randomized clinical trial (RCT) addresses the insufficient evidence in the literature comparing PT, single-bundle hamstring, and DB hamstring reconstructions for ACL rupture in adults. In addition to the clinical and functional results, this RCT uniquely reports on the disease-specific, patient-reported quality-of-life outcome at 2 years postoperatively.

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.353
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations72
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of Sport MedicineSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207