No Difference in Functional Outcomes When Lateral Extra‐Articular Tenodesis Is Added to Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Young Active Patients: The Stability Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the functional outcomes of patients included in the Stability Study randomized controlled trial comparing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) alone with ACLR with lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) at 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. METHODS: Six hundred eighteen patients undergoing ACLR, all under the age of 25 years either returning to contact pivoting sport or displaying signs of high-grade rotatory laxity or generalized ligamentous laxity, were randomly assigned to receive ACLR alone or ACLR plus LET. A total of 356 of these patients were randomized at centers participating in the functional assessments. Our primary outcome was Limb Symmetry Index, calculated using a series of 4-hop tests at 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Secondary outcome measures included pain, patient-reported function, and isokinetic strength testing. RESULTS: We found no statistically significant difference in the proportion of patients either unwilling or unfit to complete the hop testing in the ACLR alone or ACLR with LET group at 6 months (40 vs 40 respectively; P = 1.00), 12 months (25 vs 27; P = .76), and 24 months (21 vs 23; P = .87). Of those who completed hop testing, there were no statistically significant differences between groups in Limb Symmetry Index at 6, 12, or 24 months. Self-reported function (Lower Extremity Functional Score) significantly favored the ACLR alone group at 3 (P = .01) and 6 months (P = .02) postoperative but was similar by 12 months postoperative. Pain scores (P4) also showed a statistically significant difference in favor of the ACL alone group, but this also resolved by 6 months. Quadriceps peak torque (P = .03) and average power (P = .01) were also significantly different in favor of the ACLR alone group at 6 months postoperative; however, these were similar between groups by 12 months postoperative (P = .11 and P = .32, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a LET to ACLR results in slightly increased pain, a mild reduction in quadriceps strength, and reduced subjective functional recovery up to 6 months postoperatively. However, these differences do not have any impact on objective function as measured by hop test limb symmetry index. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I, Randomized Controlled Trial.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".