A Comparison of Quadriceps Tendon Autograft With Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Autograft and Hamstring Tendon Autograft for Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Quantitative Synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There is growing enthusiasm for the increased use of quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft for primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). The purpose of this analysis was to synthesize and quantitatively assess the available evidence comparing QT autograft with hamstring tendon (HT) and bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autografts, regarding functional outcomes, knee stability, anterior knee pain, and revision rates. DATA SOURCES: A search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for eligible studies up to May 2018 was conducted. Two reviewers selected studies based on inclusion criteria and assessed methodological quality. Outcomes analyzed were anterior knee pain, graft failure rates, knee stability, functional outcomes, and adverse events. Pooled analyses were performed for continuous and dichotomous variables where appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Ten studies (1 randomized trial and 9 nonrandomized cohorts) met our inclusion criteria, which included 1398 patients. The analysis showed no statistical difference in anterior knee pain when comparing QT and HT autografts, but a significant difference between QT and BPTB autografts [odds ratio, 0.15 (95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.27); P < 0.001]. There were no differences between all 3 autografts in revision rates, knee stability, and patient-reported functional outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Quadriceps tendon autograft is a suitable graft alternative for primary ACLR, as it achieves good clinical outcomes with a low incidence of anterior knee pain. Given the limited quality of the included studies, there is a need for a well-designed multicenter randomized control trial comparing QT autograft with other primary ACL autografts to confirm our findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV systematic review.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".