MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806003712 · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1655741

Predictors of Knee Arthrofibrosis and Outcomes after Arthroscopic Lysis of Adhesions following Ligamentous Reconstruction: A Retrospective Case–Control Study with Over Two Years' Average Follow-Up

2018· article· en· W2806003712 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Blake M. Bodendorfer, Laura E. Keeling, Evan M. Michaelson, Henry T. Shu, Nicholas A. Apseloff, James D. Spratt, Patrick S. Malone, Evan Argintar

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Knee Surgery · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineArthrofibrosisRetrospective cohort studySurgeryArthroscopyRange of motion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Arthrofibrosis can be a devastating complication after ligamentous knee reconstruction. Beyond early range of motion (ROM), manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) and arthroscopic lysis of adhesions (LOAs) are the most frequently employed interventions for the condition. There is a paucity of data regarding predictive factors of arthrofibrosis requiring MUA and LOA, and even less data regarding changes in validated patient-reported outcome measures following the procedure. A retrospective case–control study was performed at an academic, urban Level I trauma center of patients that developed arthrofibrosis requiring MUA and LOA following ligamentous reconstruction. The indication for LOA was failure to achieve a 90° arc of ROM by 6 weeks. Seventeen cases and 141 controls were identified. Follow-up for cases was 26.9 ± 17.1 months (mean ± standard deviation). Time from initial reconstruction to LOA was 75.2 ± 27.9 days. Cases had higher body mass indices by a mean of 2.9 (p = 0.024). The most significant risk factors for stiffness were concomitant anterior cruciate ligament, posterior cruciate ligament, and posterolateral corner/lateral collateral ligament injury (odds ratio [OR], 17.08), knee dislocation (OR, 12.84), and use of an external fixator (OR, 12.81, 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.03–54.20) (all p < 0.0026). Mean Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Indices, and International Knee Documentation Committee scores improved by 47.5, 50.5, and 47.3% (all p < 0.0038), respectively. All patients reported improvement in pain, with maximum daily pain scores improving by a mean of 4.1 points on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (p < 0.001). Mean ROM arc improved by 38.8° (p < 0.001). All 17 cases were satisfied with the procedure. Twelve cases (70.59%) reported a full return to preinjury level of activity. No factors were identified that predicted success from the procedure, likely due to inadequate sample size. Arthrofibrosis following knee injury and ligamentous reconstruction can be predicted by the severity of injury and early intervention with MUA and arthroscopic LOA can lead to a satisfactory outcome for the patient.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations40
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Knee SurgerySame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207