Graft Diameter as a Predictor for Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction and KOOS and EQ-5D Values: A Cohort Study From the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register Based on 2240 Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) using a hamstring tendon (HT) autograft is an effective and widespread method. Recent studies have identified a relationship between the graft diameter and revision ACLR. PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of the graft diameter on revision ACLR and patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing primary ACLR using HT autografts. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was conducted using the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register (SNKLR) involving all patients undergoing primary ACLR using HT autografts. Patients with graft failure who needed revision surgery (cases) were compared with patients not undergoing revision surgery (controls). The control group was matched for sex, age, and graft fixation method in a 3:1 ratio. Conditional logistic regression was performed to produce odds ratios and 95% CIs. Univariate linear regression analyses were performed for patient-related outcomes. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and EuroQol 5 dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D) values were obtained. RESULTS: A total of 2240 patients were included in which there were 560 cases and 1680 controls. No significant differences between the cases and controls were found for sex (52.9% male), mean age (21.7 years), and femoral and tibial fixation. The mean graft diameter for the cases was 8.0 ± 0.74 mm and for the controls was 8.1 ± 0.76 mm. In the present cohort, the likelihood of revision surgery for every 0.5-mm increase in the HT autograft diameter between 7.0 and 10.0 mm was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.75-0.99; P = .03). Univariate linear regression analysis found no significant regression coefficient for the change in KOOS or EQ-5D values. CONCLUSION: In a large cohort of patients after primary ACLR with HT autografts, an increase in the graft diameter between 7.0 and 10.0 mm resulted in a 0.86 times lower likelihood of revision surgery with every 0.5-mm increase. This study provides further evidence of the importance of the HT autograft size in intraoperative decision making.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".