LARS artificial ligament versus hamstring tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To systematically evaluate the efficacy of LARS artificial ligament versus autologous hamstring tendon for knee anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction by arthroscopy. Methods The related articles published from January 1995 to October 2016 were electronically searched. According to the specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, the articles were selected, and then the data were collected and analyzed using RevMan 5.3 software. Results A total of 12 controlled clinical trials with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale scores of 4 to 8 were included. A statistical difference was found in the Lysholm score at both 3 and 6 months after surgery between LARS artificial ligament (treatment group) and autologous hamstring tendon (control group), and the treatment group had a significantly higher score. Similar results were also observed for Tegner knee score and IKDC score. However, at 12 months, only the Tegner knee score was higher in the treatment group. At 24 months, there was no significant advantage of the treatment group over the control group with regard to all the three scores mentioned above. Conclusion The results of this meta-analysis suggest that LARS artificial ligament has a better clinical outcome than autologous hamstring tendon within 12 months of surgery. This advantage is gradually reduced with the improvement of autologous ligament function, and after 24 months, their clinical outcomes are equivalent. As for longer-term outcomes, further follow-ups and high-quality clinical studies will be needed. Key words: LARS artificial ligament; Autologous hamstring tendon; Anterior cruciate ligament; Reconstruction
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) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".