The impact of bone morphology on the outcome of the pivot shift test: a cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The presence of a positive pivot shift after surgical repair of the ACL is considered an important indicator of a failed reconstruction. The ability to predict the result of a pivot shift test after an ACL reconstruction using variables that can be measured prior to surgery could provide an indication of which patients may be at-risk of a poor surgical outcome.The purpose of this study was to determine whether structural characteristics of the femur and tibia, measured using plain radiographs, were associated with the result of the pivot shift test in unilateral ACL reconstructed patients. METHODS: Sixteen patients who had undergone unilateral ACL reconstruction were divided into two groups based on the results of manual pivot shift testing: 1) Pivot group; and 2) No pivot group. All patients had standing true lateral radiographs of both knees. Structural measurements of the tibia and femur were made on both knees. In addition, two new variables were created to describe the tibiofemoral mismatch: 1) Femur Tibia Size Ratio (FTSR); and 2) Tibia to Posterior Femoral Condyle Ratio (TPFCR). These measures were compared within groups and between groups. RESULTS: None of the individual structural characteristics were significantly different when compared between groups. No individual structural characteristics had a significant association with the presence of a positive pivot shift. When a between-group analysis was performed, both the FTSR (p < 0.03) and the TPFCR (p < 0.01) were significantly different between the Pivot group and the No Pivot group. A larger FTSR ratio, or a larger femur relative to the tibia, was associated with a positive pivot shift. A smaller TPFCR ratio, or a smaller tibial depth relative to the depth of the lateral posterior femoral condyle, was associated with a positive pivot shift. CONCLUSIONS: Structural characteristics in the lateral femoral condyle and lateral tibial plateau were found to be associated with the presence of a positive pivot shift. These characteristics could separate between patients in the Pivot group and the No Pivot group. Two indices, the FTSR and the TPFCR, provided better predictive value than individual characteristics in identifying patients with a knee that was structurally "at-risk" for developing a positive pivot shift.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".