MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206776465 · doi:10.1016/j.jisako.2021.08.002

The quadriceps tendon autograft is an option for primary PCL reconstruction: a systematic review

2021· review· en· W3206776465 on OpenAlexaff
Lauren Gyemi, E. Dimitra Bednar, Andrew J. Sheean, Ryosuke Kuroda, Darren de

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of ISAKOS Joint Disorders & Orthopaedic Sports Medicine · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryComplicationAnterior cruciate ligament reconstructionQuadriceps tendonPosterior cruciate ligamentKnee DislocationAnterior cruciate ligamentTendonLigament

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: The posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) is involved in almost one-third of all knee injuries. Surgical management of PCL injuries is currently controversial, and no single graft material is determined as superior in primary PCL reconstruction. A growing body of literature has demonstrated the safety and versatility of the quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft in arthroscopic knee ligament reconstruction. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to assess the QT autograft for use in primary PCL reconstruction with a focus on complication rates, revision rates, and functional outcomes. EVIDENCE REVIEW: The online databases Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and CENTRAL were searched on April 30, 2020. Retrieved records were screened by two independent reviewers. Eligible studies assessed the QT autograft in skeletally mature participants undergoing primary PCL reconstruction. Studies of multiligamentous repairs and revisions were excluded. A narrative summary of results from individual studies is presented. FINDINGS: Six articles met inclusion criteria with n = 119 participants (21% female) and a follow-up range from 12 months to 84 months. Complication rates ranged from 13% to 65% and included moderate (n = 4) and mild (n = 4) knee pain, reflex sympathetic dystrophy (n = 3), joint space narrowing (n = 3), superficial wound infections (n = 2), complex regional pain syndrome (n = 2), and flexion deficiency (n = 2). Revision rates ranged from 0% to 15% and included hardware removal (n = 4), manipulation under anaesthesia (n = 2), arthroscopic arthrolysis (n = 2), and arthroscopic refixation (n = 2). Subjective International Knee Documentation Committee scores increased from a preoperative range of 37.7 ± 21.4 to 39.5 ± 21 to a postoperative range of 74.5 ± 17.7 to 84.7. Lysholm scores, Tegner activity scores, and posterior tibial laxity also demonstrated improvements postoperatively. No statistically significant differences were reported in the study that compared the QT autograft with the hamstring tendon autograft. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This systematic review reported functional outcomes and complication rates of a small QT autograft sample that were comparable with other graft materials used in PCL reconstruction. Heterogeneity of the included studies and reported outcomes precluded meta-analysis. Future studies of better methodological quality and larger sample sizes need to be conducted before the QT autograft may be concluded as safe and effective in primary PCL reconstruction. 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.588
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ISAKOS Joint Disorders & Orthopaedic Sports MedicineSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207