The Effect of Graft Harvest and Skin Incision Angle on Sensory Disturbance in ACL Reconstruction With Semitendinosus-Gracilis Tendon Graft: A Randomized Controlled Trial and Cadaveric Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Injury to the inferior branch of the saphenous nerve (IBSN) and the subsequent loss of skin sensation after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction are common. The literature suggests that the incision angle may affect the incidence and area of loss of skin sensation. PURPOSE: To determine whether there is a difference in the incidence and area of altered sensory loss on the tibia between vertical (VI) and oblique (OI) incisions for semitendinosus-gracilis tendon graft harvest during ACL reconstruction. The cadaveric component was designed to determine whether there is a "safe zone" for incision by identifying the location and number of branches of the IBSN. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: Patients (n = 37) were randomized to receive either VI or OI. Incidence and area of altered skin sensation were documented during at least 1 postoperative visit. In addition, 18 cadaveric knees were dissected. RESULTS: = .27), data demonstrated a trend toward VI participants having a larger area of hypoesthesia at every time point. Among the 18 cadaveric specimens, 4 variations in the distribution of IBSN were noted: 18 (100%) had 1 branch, 14 (78%) had 2 branches, 6 (33%) had 3 branches, and 1 (6%) had 4 branches. No safe zone for incision could be identified. CONCLUSION: No difference was found between a vertical and an oblique incision with respect to incidence or area of sensory loss. Furthermore, it was not possible to identify a safe zone that would prevent transection of all nerves branches of the IBSN based on the cadaveric component of this study.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".