MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2620720603 · doi:10.1177/2325967117724345

Thirty-Year Experience With ACL Reconstruction Using Patellar Tendon: A Critical Evaluation of Revision and Reoperation

2017· article· en· W2620720603 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew J. Riff, Timothy J. Luchetti, Alexander E. Weber, Jaskarndip Chahal, Bernard R. Bach

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryPatellar tendonConcomitantAnterior cruciate ligament reconstructionAnterior cruciate ligament

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: During the preoperative discussion prior to anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), patients are often interested in data regarding rates of revision reconstruction, reoperation, concomitant pathologic changes, and future contralateral ACL injury. PURPOSE: To analyze a single surgeon's experience with primary and revision ACLR over a 30-year interval, focusing on incidence and risk factors for revision and reoperation. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: Patients who underwent ACLR from 1986 to 2016 were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Covariates of interest included age, sex, time, and graft selection. Outcomes of interest included revision and reoperation rates. RESULTS: A total of 2450 ACLRs (mean patient age, 29 years; 58% male) were reviewed. Among primary ACLRs performed (n = 2225), 68% entailed bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) autograft and 30% entailed BTB allograft. Patients undergoing ACLR with autograft and allograft had a mean age of 22 and 37 years, respectively. The rate of revision ACLR was 1.8% and 3.5% for primary and revision cases, respectively. An increased rate of revision was noted among females compared with males (2.6% vs 1.2%) and among allografts compared with autografts (2.7% vs 1.3%). Low-dose irradiation did not affect allograft revision rates. The nonrevision reoperation rate following primary ACLR was 12%. The nonrevision reoperation rate was lower among primary cases reconstructed with allograft than autograft (9% vs 13%). Seventeen percent of cases involved concomitant meniscal repair and, among these, 13% required revision meniscal surgery. The rate of contralateral ACLR was 5.3. CONCLUSION: This information is useful in the informed consent process, for perioperative decision making regarding graft choice, and for identifying patients who are at risk for injuring the uninvolved knee.

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 score0.006

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.319 · 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

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207