No difference between full thickness and partial thickness quadriceps tendon autografts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this review was to compare outcomes and complication profiles of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-R) between full thickness (FT-Q) and partial thickness (PT-Q) quadriceps tendon (QT) autografts. METHODS: As per PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE were searched in September 2017 for English language, human studies of all levels of evidence on patients undergoing primary ACL-R with FT-Q or PT-Q. This search was repeated in March 2018 to capture additional articles. Data regarding postoperative outcomes and complications were abstracted. Due to heterogeneous reporting, data were not combined in meta-analysis and were summarized descriptively. RESULTS: Upon screening 3670 titles, 18 studies satisfied inclusion/exclusion criteria. The second search identified an additional two studies for a total of 20 studies (50% case-control, 50% case series). These studies examined 1212 patients (1219 knees) of mean age 29.8 years (range 15-59) followed a mean of 42.2 months (range 12-120). FT-Q and PT-Q autografts were used in eight studies (50.5% of knees), and thirteen studies (49.5% of knees), respectively. Only one study directly compared FT-Q to PT-Q. Instrumented laxity was less than 3 mm in 74.8 and 72.4% of the FT-Q and PT-Q groups, respectively. Postoperative IKDC Subjective Knee Form scores were similar between the FT-Q (82.5) and PT-Q (82.1) groups. Postoperative quadriceps strength, measured as a percentage of the contralateral side, were similar in the FT-Q (89.5%) and PT-Q (85.1%) groups. Graft failure rates for the FT-Q and PT-Q groups were 3.7 and 3.0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Across the 20 studies included in this review, there appeared to be no difference in outcomes or complications between either FT-Q or PT-Q in primary ACL-R. Moreover, primary ACL-R using QT autografts appears to have successful outcomes with a low rate of graft failure, irrespective of tendon thickness. While further comparative studies are needed to better delineate the optimal thickness of quadriceps tendon for primary ACL-R, these data suggest that, in primary ACL-R, either FT-Q or PT-Q is efficacious and, in the clinical setting, surgeons may be justified in using either graft thickness. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, Systematic Review of Level III and IV studies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".