Posteromedial versus direct posterior approach for posterior cruciate ligament avulsion – A comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Purpose: Open reduction of acute avulsion of posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) fragment may be achieved through direct posterior approach or posteromedial approach. The aim of our study was to compare these two techniques for fixation of avulsed PCL fragment. Our primary study objective was to study that which of the above techniques provides a better screw placement on post-operative radiographs. The secondary objectives were to study any statistically significant differences in surgical time, blood loss, incidence of neurovascular injury, bone union and functional knee scores in the above two techniques. Materials and methods: This is a prospective, comparative, interventional, single tertiary referral centre-based study from November 2014 to May 2019. Patients in the direct posterior group were treated with the approach described by Abbott and Carpenter, and patients in the posteromedial group were treated with the approach described by Burks and Schaffer. Screw placement was assessed on anteroposterior (AP) and lateral knee X-rays. Blood loss was studied using haemoglobin balance method. Functional scores were recorded preoperatively and at 1-year follow up using Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) knee scores. Results: The posterior group showed better screw placement angle compared to the posteromedial group. In the AP plane, the mean angle of screw placement and fracture line was 83° compared to 59° in the posteromedial group. Average fracture union time, post-operative range of motion and post-operative WOMAC scores were not statistically different in both groups. There were no cases of neurovascular complication, deep vein thrombosis and superficial or deep surgical site infection in any group. Conclusion: Direct posterior approach to PCL avulsion provides better screw placement angle compared to the posteromedial approach, which might result in better interfragmentary compression at the avulsion site. However, the two approaches did not differ statistically in terms of functional scores of patients reported at 1 year.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".