THE LARS AUGMENTED 4-TUNNEL HAMSTRING “HYBRID” ACLR GRAFT CONSTRUCTION ALLOWS ACCELERATED REHABILITATION WITHOUT KNEE LAXITY — CASE SERIES OF 111 PATIENTS AFTER 2 YEARS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This prospective case series is designed to determine the 2-year clinical and radiological outcomes of patients undergoing an ACL reconstruction using the ligament augmentation reconstruction system (LARS) 133 prosthesis as an augmentation device for a 4-tunnel autologous hamstrings graft, in the context of accelerated rehabilitation. Methods: A total of 91 patients were assessed at 2 years post-operatively after undergoing an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with a doubled semitendinosis and LARS 133 prosthesis for the anteromedial bundle (AMB) and gracilis for the posterolateral bundle. Assessment included clinical review, KT-1000 arthrometry, IKDC, Tegner, Lysholm, Cincinnati and ACL QOL knee scoring, graft failure and re-operation rates. Tunnel positions and synovitis were assessed using gadolinium magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans and X-rays. Results: This technique in the context of accelerated rehabilitation is not associated with increased knee laxity and failure. There was no increase in knee laxity, with a mean side-to-side difference in KT-1000 arthrometer testing of 0.5[Formula: see text]mm ([Formula: see text]/[Formula: see text] 1.7). Two-year outcomes were satisfactory with 98% of all patients having an IKDC rating of A or B, and mean values of IKDC subjective 86.5 ([Formula: see text]/[Formula: see text] 11.6), Tegner 6.5 ([Formula: see text]/[Formula: see text] 2.0), Lysholm 87.1 ([Formula: see text]/[Formula: see text] 8.9), Cincinnati 378.8 ([Formula: see text]/[Formula: see text] 41.5) and ACL Quality of Life 81.5 ([Formula: see text]/[Formula: see text] 19.3). There was no evidence of synovitis and all tunnels were positioned satisfactorily. The graft failure rate was 1.1% and there was a re-operation rate of 15.4%. Conclusion: We conclude that LARS 133 augmentation of autologous hamstrings ACLR provides a graft construct allowing accelerated rehabilitation without increased knee laxity. It is not associated with significant synovitis within the first two years. Re-operation rates however are higher. The rates at which patients recover and return to life and sports activity following different ACLR graft types appears as a topic of future research interest.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".