MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2560176944

ANALYSIS OF FAILURES FOLLOWING MEDIAL PATELLOFEMORAL LIGAMENT (MPFL) RECONSTRUCTION AND IMBRICATION

2018· article· en· W2560176944 on OpenAlexaff
Laurie A. Hiemstra, Sarah Kerslake, Mark R. Lafave

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity
Canadian institutionsBanff Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedial patellofemoral ligamentMedicinePatellaRetinaculumSurgeryDysplasiaPhysical examinationRadiographyTendonInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patellofemoral instability is common injury and proximal soft tissue stabilisation via MPFL reconstruction or imbrication is the mainstay of treatment. The contribution of certain pathoanatomies to the failure of patellofemoral stabilisation is unknown. The purpose of this study was to analyse the failure rate of patellar stabilisation procedures in a large cohort as measured by re-dislocation of the patella. A secondary purpose was to identify the pathoantomical features that may have predisposed these patients to failure. Between May 2008 and March 2014, 207 MPFL reconstructions and 70 MPFL imbrications were performed by a single surgeon. Post-operative assessment included clinical examination to assess the integrity of the MPFL graft, plain radiographs and the Banff Patellofemoral Instability Instrument (BPII), a disease-specific outcome measure. Failures were identified and risk factors including trochlear dysplasia, patella alta, generalised ligamentous laxity (GLL), femoral tunnel position and rotational abnormalities were evaluated as contributing factors. There were 48 male and 178 female patients. The mean duration of follow-up was 24.1 months (SD 9.4, range 12–74). The average age at time of surgery was 24.81 years (SD 8.87, range 50.35–8.99). The average BMI was 23.75 (SD 3.62, range 36.70–14.90). There were 10 failures in the MPFL reconstruction group (4.8%), 1 male and 9 females. Femoral tunnel position was assessed in relation to Schottle9s point as good or excellent in all 10 cases. In terms of pathoanotomy, 8/10 failures had high-grade trochlear dysplasia, 1/10 had patella alta, 6/10 had a Beighton score of >/= 4, and 3/10 had clinically significant rotational abnormalities of the lower extremity. The primary cause attributed to the 10 failure cases was trauma in two, trochlear dysplasia in three, rotational abnormalities in one, combined femoral anteversion and GLL in two, and combined trochlear dysplasia and GLL in two. There were 13 failures in the MPFL imbrication group (18.6%), 2 males and 11 females. Among these failures, 4/13 had high-grade trochlear dysplasia, 3/13 had patella alta, 10/13 had a Beighton score of >/= 4, and one had clinically significant rotational abnormalities of the lower extremity. The primary pathology that was considered to contribute to the imbrication failure cases was trochlear dysplasia in four, generalised ligamentous laxity in six, rotational abnormalities in one, patella alta with trochlear dysplasia in one, and generalised ligamentous laxity with trochlear dysplasia in one. Prior to surgical failure the mean BPII score for the failure group was 71.5/100, compared with 74.6/100 for the remainder of the cohort. MPFL reconstruction is highly successful surgical procedure for stabilising the unstable patella with a failure rate of only 4.8%. Higher failure rates are seen in patients undergoing imbrication of the MPFL compared to a reconstruction. Pathoanatomies that contribute to failure vary between patients with the most common being trochlear dysplasia and generalised ligamentous laxity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHermeneutics and Narrative Identity→French-language works237,207→