A Randomized Trial Comparing Patellar, Hamstring and Double-bundle ACL Reconstruction at 5-yrs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This prospective, double-blind RCT compares ACL reconstruction using patellar tendon, quadruple hamstring and double-bundle hamstring grafts, by measuring patient-reported disease-specific quality of life outcome in patients with isolated ACL deficiency of the knee at a 5-years post-op. Methods: Patients (n=330; 183 males, 147 females) aged 14-50 years were randomly allocated and equally distributed to one of three anatomic ACL autograft reconstruction techniques: 1) Patellar Tendon (PT; mean age 28.7 years), 2) Quadruple-stranded Hamstring Tendon (HT; mean age 28.5 years), or 3) Double-Bundle using hamstring tendons (DB; mean age 28.3 years). Computer-generated allocation with varied block randomization was performed intra-operatively. Outcomes were measured at baseline, 3 and 6 months, 1, 2 and 5 years. Two-year results were previously reported. Primary outcome: Anterior Cruciate Ligament Quality-of-Life (ACL-QOL). Secondary outcomes: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score and objective grades, pivot shift, range of motion, kneeling pain, Tegner activity level, and the Cincinnati Occupational Rating Scale. The proportion of re-ruptures, partial re-ruptures and the combined total traumatic re-injuries were compared. Radiographic evaluation was performed at baseline, 2 and 5 years; this analysis is ongoing. A 5% significance level was used for all outcomes. Results: 315 randomized patients (95%) d 5-yr follow-up. There were 4 withdrawals and 11 patients lost-to-follow-up. Baseline characteristics between the groups were not different. ACL-QOL scores increased significantly from baseline over time for all groups (p=0.000). There was no difference in mean ACL-QOL score at 5-years (p=0.548): PT=82.5 (SD 17.9, 95% CI 79.0-86.0); HT=83.9 (SD 18.2, 95% CI 80.3-87.4); DB=81.1 (SD 19.3, 95% CI 77.4-84.8). At 5-years, there were no differences in the proportion of patients with a Pivot Shift grade 2 or greater (p=0.106): PT=11/98 (11%); HT=16/99 (16%); DB=23/103 (22%). Mean IKDC subjective scores were not different between groups at 5-yrs (p=0.770): PT=83.9 (SD 12.9, 95% CI = 81.4-86.5); HT=85.2 (SD 13.0, 95% CI = 82.7-87.7); DB=84.3 (SD 13.4, 95% CI = 81.7-86.9). Based on IKDC objective grades, the proportions of Normal/Nearly Normal knees at 5-years were not different between groups: PT=85/98 (87%); HT=82/99 (81%); DB=75/103 (76%), p=0.093. 5-yr Tegner activity levels and Cincinnati Occupational Scores were also not different between the groups (p=0.872 and p=0.813, respectively). Kneeling pain remained more common in the PT group (PT=10/98; HT 4/98; DB 2/101; p=0.029). More traumatic graft ruptures occurred in the HT and DB groups (PT=4/103; HT=11/105; DB=11/107; p=0.145). Revision ACL reconstructions were performed on 22 of these patients. There were an additional 11 partial graft re-ruptures (PT=0; HT=5; DB=6), with less total traumatic re-injuries in the patellar tendon group (PT=4; HT=16 and DB=17, p=0.010). Four patients had additional surgery to the index knee, not including the revision surgery between the 2 and 5-yr follow-up. Conclusion: At 5 years, there was no difference in disease-specific quality-of-life outcome or IKDC grades between the PT, HT and DB techniques for ACL reconstruction. There were significantly more traumatic graft re-injuries in the HT and DB groups compared to the PT group.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".