MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3155207704 · doi:10.1186/s40634-021-00337-y

Posterior cruciate ligament repair with suture tape augmentation: a case series with minimum 2‐year follow‐up

2021· article· en· W3155207704 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Graeme P. Hopper, Ahmer Irfan, Joanne M. Jenkins, William Wilson, Gordon M. Mackay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Orthopaedics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWOMACTearsOsteoarthritisSurgeryPosterior cruciate ligamentOrthopedic surgeryFibrous jointVisual analogue scaleKnee painQuality of life (healthcare)LigamentAnterior cruciate ligament

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) is an important stabilizer of the knee and can be damaged in up to 20% of ligamentous injuries. Numerous techniques for surgical treatment have been described in the literature with none shown to be clearly superior. The aim of this study was to assess the 2-year outcomes of PCL repair with suture tape augmentation. METHODS: Seventeen patients undergoing PCL repair with suture tape augmentation were prospectively followed up for a minimum of two years. One patient was lost to follow-up leaving sixteen patients in the final analysis (94.1%). Indications for this procedure were acute Grade III PCL ruptures, symptomatic chronic tears and PCL tears as part of a multi-ligament injury. Exclusion criteria were patients with retracted PCL remnants or poor tissue quality. Patient-reported outcomes were measured using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Visual Analogue Pain Scale (VAS-pain), Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) and Marx Activity Scale. Patients with any postoperative complications were identified. Mean differences between the outcomes pre-operatively and at two years postoperatively were evaluated using paired t-tests with significance set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: The mean KOOS at 2 years was 87.0, 75.5, 93.0, 69.6 and 54.2 for pain, symptoms, ADL, sport/recreation and QOL respectively. These improved significantly from 60.2, 49.8, 65.0, 33.0 and 34.2 preoperatively (p < 0.05). The mean WOMAC scores at 2 years were 91.0, 78.3 and 93.0 for pain, stiffness and function respectively. These improved significantly from 63.0, 51.7 and 65.0 preoperatively (p < 0.01). The VAS score improved from 3.0 to 0.8 (p < 0.01) and the VR-12 score improved from 34.9 to 50.9 at 2 years (p < 0.001). However, the Marx activity scale decreased from 8.7 pre-injury to 6.3 at 2 years (N.S.). One patient (6.3%) suffered a re-rupture. CONCLUSION: PCL repair with suture tape augmentation demonstrates satisfactory patient reported outcome measures at minimum 2-year follow-up. These figures compare favorably with success rates described in the literature for PCL reconstruction techniques. Therefore, PCL repair with suture tape augmentation is an effective treatment option in selected 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations22
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental OrthopaedicsSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207