Clinical studies of single‐stage combined ACL and PCL reconstruction variably report graft tensioning, fixation sequence, and knee flexion angle at time of fixation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In single-stage ACL-PCL reconstruction, there is uncertainty regarding the order of graft tensioning and fixation, as well as the optimal knee flexion angle(s) for graft fixation. A systematic review of clinical studies of single-stage combined ACL-PCL reconstruction was performed to determine whether a particular fixation sequence and/or knee flexion angle is associated with superior outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. All levels of evidence were included. All outcome measures were extracted, including physical examination values, radiographic measurements, and objective and subjective outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 19 included studies, 17 tensioned and fixed the PCL before the ACL. Only four studies reported the methods/forces used for graft tensioning. Across studies, the ACL was fixed at variable knee flexion angles, from full extension to 70°. Conversely, 3 studies fixed the PCL at a knee flexion angle < 45°, while the remaining 16 studies fixed the PCL at a flexion angle > 70°. Patient-reported outcomes were qualitatively similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review found considerable variability in graft tension, fixation sequence, and knee flexion angle at the time of fixation, with insufficient evidence to support specific surgical practices. Most commonly, the PCL is fixed before the ACL graft, with fixation occurring at a knee flexion angle between 70° and 90° and near full extension, respectively. The methodology for quantifying the forces applied for graft tensioning is rarely described. Given this clinical equipoise, future studies should consistently report these surgical details. Furthermore, prospective, randomized studies on the treatment of multiligament knee injuries are needed to improve outcomes in patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
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 | 0.026 | 0.126 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".