Return to Baseline Physical Activity After Bone–Patellar Tendon–Bone Versus Hamstring Tendon Autografts for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Bone–patellar tendon–bone (BPTB) and hamstring tendon (HT) autografts are the most utilized grafts for primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The ability of a patient to return to a preinjury level of physical activity is a key consideration in choice of graft; the influence of graft choice on this metric lacks consensus in the literature. Purpose: To assess the effects of autograft choice (BPTB vs HT) for primary ACL reconstruction on return to baseline level of physical activity and/or sports participation. Study Design: Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials comparing the use of BPTB and HT autografts for primary ACL reconstruction was conducted. The electronic databases EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science were comprehensively queried through September 23, 2019. The primary outcome was return to preinjury level of activity/sports. Secondary outcomes included knee stability testing (Lachman, KT-1000 arthrometer, and pivot-shift tests) and clinical subjective knee scores (Tegner, Cincinnati, International Knee Documentation Committee, and Lysholm). Two independent reviewers were involved in the screening of titles and abstracts, data extraction, and the assessment of risk of bias. Meta-analyses were performed respecting the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention. Results: A total of 29 studies (N = 3099 patients) were eligible for this review, of which 13 (n = 1029 patients) reported on return to baseline level of sports as an endpoint. The risk ratio (RR) of using BPTB vs HT on return to baseline sport level was 1.03 (0.91-1.17; P = .63). Absence of a positive pivot-shift test was the only secondary outcome, with a statistically significant RR of 0.66 (95% CI, 0.50-0.86) in favor of BPTB autografts ( P = .002). Conclusion: In reviewing the current literature, no recommendation can be made on the optimal graft choice when using a return to baseline level of physical activity and/or sports participation as a primary metric.
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 | 0.018 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.028 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".