MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2407232002

Thermographic and microscopic evaluation of LARS knee ligament tearing.

2014· article· en· W2407232002 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jenel Marian Pătraşcu, Mihaela Amarandei, Karla Noemy Kun, Ovidiu Borugă, Alina Totorean, Bogdan Andor, Sorin Florescu

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLigamentKnee JointMedicineAnterior cruciate ligamentTearingOrthopedic surgeryCruciate ligamentSurgeryArthroscopyMaterials science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Damage to knee articular ligaments causes important functional problems and adversely affects particularly the stability of the knee joint. Several methods were developed in order to repair damage to the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), which employ autografts, allografts, as well as synthetic ligaments. One such synthetic scaffold, the ligament advanced reinforcement system (LARS) synthetic ligament is made of non-absorbing polyethylene terephthalate fibers whose structure allow tissue ingrowths in the intra-articular part, improving the stability of the joint. The LARS ligament is nowadays widely used in modern knee surgery in the Europe, Canada, China or Japan. This paper evaluates LARS ligament from two perspectives. The first regards a study done by the Orthopedics Clinic II, Timisoara, Romania, which compared results obtained by employing two techniques of ACL repair - the Bone-Tendon-Bone (BTB) or LARS arthroscopic, intra-articular techniques. This study found that patients treated with the BTB technique presented with an IKDC score of 45.82±1.14 units preoperative, with increasing values in the first nine months after each implant post-surgical ligament restoration, reaching an average value of 75.92 ± 2.88 units postoperative. Patients treated with the LARS technique presented with an IKDC score of 43.64 ± 1.11 units preoperative, and a score of 77.32 ± 2.71 units postoperative. The second perspective describes the thermographic and microscopic analysis of an artificial knee ligament tearing or loosening. The objective of the study was to obtain information regarding the design of artificial ligaments in order to expand their lifespan and avoid complications such as recurring synovitis, osteoarthritis and trauma of the knee joint. Thermographic data has shown that tearing begins from the inside out, thus improving the inner design of the ligament would probably enhance its durability. An optical microscope was employed to obtain images of structural damage in the inner layers, for use in further analysis of the tears. In conclusion, the LARS artificial ligament, like the BTB technique, displays both advantages and disadvantages. It is important to understand that these two options of ACL lesion repair are not competing. LARS could, in addition to its use in primary ACL ruptures, be utilized in revisions of autologous graft rupture post primary ACL repair.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques→French-language works237,207→