Synthetic Graft Compared With Allograft Reconstruction for Extensor Mechanism Disruption in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Multicenter Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Extensor mechanism disruption after total knee arthroplasty is a serious complication leading to notable patient morbidity. The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes of extensor mechanism allograft with synthetic graft reconstruction. METHODS: We retrospectively identified all patients who underwent extensor mechanism reconstruction using either allograft or synthetic graft from two high-volume academic arthroplasty institutions between 2006 and 2017. We collected extensor lag, need for ambulatory aids, and patient-reported outcome measures, as well as the incidence of postoperative complications and revision surgeries. We evaluated cost differences, considering both material cost and the need for revision surgery. RESULTS: We identified 27 cases. A significantly greater postoperative extensor lag was found in the allograft group (P = 0.05). Graft failure after synthetic reconstruction was zero, with an overall revision surgery rate of 15%. Graft failure was 21%, and the revision surgery rate was 43% after allograft reconstruction. The allograft cost was significantly higher compared with the synthetic graft cost (P = 0.001). The mean total cost was 4,733.08 CAD for the synthetic group and 24,050.40 CAD for the allograft group (P = 0.17). DISCUSSION: Synthetic reconstruction for extensor mechanism disruption shows benefit in postoperative extensor lag, graft failure, revision surgery, and cost when compared with allograft. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".