Function and strain of the anterolateral ligament part II: reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose Anterolateral rotatory instability (ALRI) may result from isolated ruptures of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) or combined lesions with the anterolateral ligament (ALL). Biomechanical studies have demonstrated that the ALL contributes to the overall rotational stability of the knee. The purpose of this study was to investigate the biomechanical function of anatomic ALL reconstruction (ALLrec) in the setting of a combined ACL and ALL injury and reconstruction. The hypothesis was that combined ACL reconstruction (ACLrec) and ALLrec (ACL/ALLrec) significantly reduces internal rotation and shows load sharing between both reconstructions compared with isolated ACLrec. Methods Eight fresh‐frozen cadaveric knees were evaluated using a six degrees of freedom knee simulator. Continuous passive motion and external loads were tested. Kinematic differences between ACLrec and combined ACL/ALLrec were compared. Additionally, ACL graft tension and ALL graft strain were measured continuously throughout the testing protocol. Results Combined anatomic ACL/ALLrec significantly improved the internal rotatory stability compared with isolated ACLrec at 30°–90° under an internal rotation moment. During a static pivot‐shift test, additional ALLrec showed no significant reduction of ap‐translation. ALLrec resulted in an increase in ACL graft tension during continuous passive motion and with additional internal rotation moment. Conclusion In the case of a combined ACL and ALL deficiency, concurrent ACLrec and ALLrec significantly improved the rotatory stability of the knee compared with solely reconstructing the ACL at flexion angles ≥ 30°. Nevertheless, additional ALLrec with fixation at 60° and with low tension could not restore extension‐near rotatory stability. For that reason, ALLrec with fixation at 60° flexion cannot be recommended in clinical application.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".