MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953513457 · doi:10.1177/2325967119854657

Lateral Compartment Contact Pressures Do Not Increase After Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis and Subsequent Subtotal Meniscectomy

2019· article· en· W2953513457 on OpenAlexaff
Tomoyuki Shimakawa, Timothy A. Burkhart, Cynthia E. Dunning, Ryan M. Degen, Alan Getgood

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsLawson Health Research InstituteFowler Kennedy Sport Medicine ClinicWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCompartment (ship)Anterior cruciate ligament reconstructionAnterior cruciate ligamentSurgeryOrthodonticsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Modified Lemaire lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) has been proposed as a method of addressing persistent anterolateral rotatory laxity after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR). However, concerns remain regarding the potential for increasing lateral compartment contact pressures. Purpose: To investigate changes in tibiofemoral joint contact pressures after isolated ACLR and combined ACLR plus LET with varying states of a lateral meniscal injury. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Eight fresh-frozen cadaveric knee specimens (mean age, 60.0 ± 3.4 years) were utilized for this study, with specimens potted and loaded on a materials testing machine. A pressure sensor was inserted into the lateral compartment of the tibiofemoral joint, and specimens were loaded at 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° of flexion in the following states: (1) baseline (ACL- and anterolateral ligament–deficient), (2) ACLR, (3) ACLR with LET, (4) partial meniscectomy (removal of 50% of the posterior third of the lateral meniscus), (5) subtotal meniscectomy (removal of 100% of the posterior third of the lateral meniscus), and (6) LET release (LETR). Mean contact pressure, peak pressure, and center of pressure were analyzed using 1-way repeated-measures analysis of variance. Results: Across all flexion angles, there was no statistically significant increase in the mean contact pressure or peak pressure after ACLR plus LET with and without lateral meniscectomy compared with isolated ACLR. There was a significant reduction in the mean contact pressure, from baseline, after subtotal meniscectomy (69.72% ± 19.27% baseline; P = .04) and LETR (65.81% ± 13.40% baseline; P = .003) at 0° and after the addition of LET to ACLR at 30° (61.20% ± 23.08% baseline; P = .031). The center of pressure was observed to be more anterior after partial (0°, 30°) and subtotal (0°, 60°) meniscectomy and LETR (0°, 30°, 60°). Conclusion: Under the loading conditions of this study, LET did not significantly alter lateral compartment contact pressures when performed in conjunction with ACLR in the setting of an intact or posterior horn–deficient lateral meniscus. Clinical Relevance: This study should provide surgeons with the confidence that it is safe to perform LET in this manner in conjunction with ACLR without altering lateral compartment pressures, regardless of the status of the lateral meniscus.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.245
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations27
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207