Medial Patellar Instability: Treatment and Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Historically, a lateral retinacular release was one of the primary surgical interventions used to treat lateral patellar instability. However, disruption of the lateral structures during this procedure has been associated with medial instability of the patella. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesize that good to excellent outcomes can be achieved at midterm follow-up after lateral patellotibial ligament reconstruction. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: Thirteen patients were treated for medial patellar instability with a lateral patellotibial ligament reconstruction between May 2011 and December 2013 by a single surgeon. All patients had previously undergone a lateral release procedure and had symptomatic medial patellar instability. Patients were evaluated using patient-reported outcome scores at a minimum of 2 years postsurgery. RESULTS: The mean Lysholm score improved from 45.6 (range, 11-76) to 71.9 (range, 30-91). The median preoperative Tegner activity scale score was 3 (range, 1-7), while the median postoperative score was 4 (range, 1-9). The median Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) total score improved from 38 (range, 1-57) preoperatively to 6 postoperatively (range, 0-52). The mean patient satisfaction postoperatively was 8.2 (range, 5-10). CONCLUSION: Significantly improved outcomes can be achieved at midterm follow-up with a low rate of complications when reconstructing the lateral patellotibial ligament in the setting of iatrogenic medial patellar instability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".