Bone Versus All Soft Tissue Quadriceps Tendon Autografts for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To examine existing literature on objective and patient-reported outcomes and complications after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with bone-quadriceps-tendon (B-QT) or soft tissue-quadriceps tendon (S-QT) to further clarify the role of graft type in primary ACLR. METHODS: In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, PubMed, Embase, and Medline were searched in October 2019 for English-language, human studies of all evidence levels on patients undergoing primary ACLR with B-QT or S-QT autograft. RESULTS: 24 of 1,381 studies satisfied criteria, with 20 using B-QT (1,534 patients, mean age 29.6 years [range 14 to 59], mean follow-up 41.2 months [range 12 to 120]) and 5 using S-QT (181 patients, mean age 32.4 years [range 15 to 58), mean follow-up 25.5 months [range 12 to 46]). International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores were 67.3 to 89.5 with B-QT and 80.4 to 81.6 with S-QT. Lysholm scores were 85.7 to 97.4 with B-QT and 81.6 to 89.2 with S-QT. More B-QT patients demonstrated rotatory laxity on pivot shift compared with S-QT (0% to 39% versus 0%, respectively). The most common complication was graft rupture, and no differences were observed between graft choices (B-QT 0% to 9% versus S-QT 0% to 3.8%). CONCLUSIONS: The main findings from this review report that more B-QT patients demonstrated postoperative rotatory instability than S-QT patients, and that there are no differences in graft rupture between the 2 graft choices. Although statistical conclusions may not be drawn because of heterogeneity in reporting, it appears that the B-QT group featured much wider major and minor complication profiles. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, systematic review of level I-IV 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".