MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3087664953 · doi:10.1136/jisakos-2020-000476

Anatomical anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) results in fewer rates of atraumatic graft rupture, and higher rates of rotatory knee stability: a meta-analysis

2020· article· en· W3087664953 on OpenAlexaff
Yousif Eliya, Khaled Nawar, Benjamin B. Rothrauff, Bryson P. Lesniak, Volker Musahl, Darren de

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of ISAKOS Joint Disorders & Orthopaedic Sports Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsImpactMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnterior cruciate ligament reconstructionMeta-analysisChecklistPivot-shift testLigamentSurgeryAnterior cruciate ligamentInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance This review highlights the differences in outcomes between anatomical and non-anatomical anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) techniques. Objective To compare clinical and functional outcomes between anatomical and non-anatomical ACLR techniques. Evidence review A search of MEDLINE, Embase and PubMed from 1 January 2000 to 24 October 2019 was conducted. Randomised and prospective primary ACLR studies using autograft and a minimum of 2 years of follow-up were included. The Anatomic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Checklist (AARSC) was used to categorise studies as anatomical. Outcomes analysed included failure rate, knee stability and functional outcomes. A meta-analysis using risk ratio and mean differences was conducted using a random effects model. Findings Thirty-six studies were included, representing 3710 patients with a follow-up range of 24–300 months. The overall failure rate was 96/1470 (6.5%) and 131/1952 (6.7%) in the anatomical group and non-anatomical group, respectively. The pooled results of the overall failure rate showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the anatomical and the non-anatomical groups (p=0.96). There were 37/60 (61.7%) and 29/67 (43.3%) traumatic failures in the anatomical and non-anatomical groups, respectively. The number of patients with the negative postoperative pivot-shift test was 995/1252 (79.5%) and 1140/1589 (71.1%) in the anatomical and non-anatomical groups, respectively. The pooled results indicated a statistically significant higher number of patients with a positive pivot shift in the non-anatomical group compared with the anatomical group (p=0.03). Conclusions and relevance This study demonstrated that the overall failure rate was similar between the anatomical and non-anatomical approaches. However, the anatomical ACLR demonstrated a significantly superior restoration of rotatory stability, as evidenced by a higher percentage with a negative postoperative pivot-shift test. Non-anatomical ACLR resulted in higher rates of atraumatic graft ruptures and persistent rotatory knee instability. Surgeons should consider anatomical ACLR when treating rotatory knee stability in patients. Level of evidence II, systematic review and meta-analysis of level I and II studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.030
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ISAKOS Joint Disorders & Orthopaedic Sports MedicineSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207