MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197089264 · doi:10.1007/s00167-021-06712-7

Knee flexor strength and symmetry vary by device, body position and angle of assessment following ACL reconstruction with hamstring grafts at long‐term follow‐up

2021· article· en· W3197089264 on OpenAlexaff
Dan Ogborn, Sheila McRae, Gabriel Larose, Jeff Leiter, Holly Brown, Pete MacDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueKnee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsPan Am ClinicManitoba HealthHealth Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupine positionHamstringMedicineConcentricAnterior cruciate ligamentAnterior cruciate ligament reconstructionIsometric exerciseKnee JointPhysical medicine and rehabilitationAnatomyOrthodonticsPhysical therapySurgeryMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose Persistent deficits in knee flexor strength following harvest of semitendinosus and gracilis for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction are inconsistent in the literature. Variation in methodology, including measuring torque at higher knee flexion angles may partially explain these discrepant findings. The objective of this study was to determine whether positioning (seated vs supine), consideration of peak or joint‐angle‐specific torque or device (Isokinetic Dynamometer vs NordBord Hamstring Dynamometer) impact the magnitude of knee flexor strength differences between limbs. Methods Participants (n = 31, 44.2 ± 10.7 years,) who were at 14 ± 4.4 years follow‐up for unilateral ACL reconstruction with semitendinosus/gracilis grafts completed the ACL Quality of Life outcome and an assessment including isokinetic concentric knee extensor and flexor strength in seated and supine with peak torque and torque at 60° (T60) and 75° (T75) knee flexion measured, followed by an eccentric Nordic Hamstring Curl. Results Isokinetic concentric knee flexor torque was reduced in supine relative to seated, on the reconstructed limb against the unaffected, and at higher degrees of knee flexion relative to peak torque (T60 and T75 against peak torque). Limb symmetry varied by methodology (F(6,204) = 8.506, p = 0.001) with reduced symmetry in supine T75 against all measures (71.1 ± 16.5%, p < 0.05), supine T60 against seated peak torque (82.7 ± 14.2%, p < 0.05), and the NordBord was lower than seated peak torque that was not statistically significant (83.9 ± 12.8%, n.s.). Knee extensor peak (r2 = 0.167 (F(1,27) = 5.3, p = 0.03) and Nordic curl eccentric torque (r2 = 0.267, F(2,26) = 4.736, p = 0.02) were predictors of ACL‐QoL score, although a combined model did not improve over Nordic torque alone. Conclusion Limb symmetry cannot be assumed in clinical practice across differing assessment methods for knee flexor strength as deficits are greatest in the supine position with torque measured at 75° knee flexion. Isokinetic knee extensor and eccentric knee flexor torque during the Nordic hamstring curl were predictors of ACL‐QoL scoring and should be considered alongside patient‐reported outcomes for patients following ACL reconstruction with hamstring grafts. Level of evidence Level 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)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations20
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnee Surgery Sports Traumatology ArthroscopySame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207