Suture Anchor Repair of Quadriceps Tendon and Patellar Tendon Ruptures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To document patient-reported function, range of motion (ROM), and failure rate of a surgical technique for repairing quadriceps tendon (QT) and patellar tendon (PT) ruptures with suture anchors. Methods: Consecutive patients 18 years of age or older who had isolated QT or PT ruptures treated with suture anchor repair between 2004 and 2014 were identified. Patients were included if preoperative and minimum 6-month postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores and/or minimum 8-week postoperative ROM had been collected. The effects of patient age, interval between injury and surgery, and length of follow-up period on postoperative IKDC scores were analyzed with Pearson correlation. Results: QT repair was performed in 36 patients with a mean postoperative IKDC score of 66.9 and mean ROM of 0 to 116 degrees. PT repair was performed in 27 patients with a mean postoperative IKDC score of 64.4 and mean ROM of 0 to 117 degrees. The failure rate of the 63 suture anchor repairs was 4.8%. There was no significant correlation between IKDC score and either increasing age ( r =−0.23, P =0.15), increasing interval between injury and surgery ( r =0.12, P =0.46) or length of follow-up period ( r =0.07, P =0.67). No significant difference in IKDC score was found between knot-tied and knotless suture anchor repairs ( P =0.4). Conclusions: Suture anchor repair of QT and PT ruptures results in full active extension and a low failure rate, but IKDC scores indicate continued functional deficits in most patients. Level of Evidence: Level IV—therapeutic.
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 | 0.000 | 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".