MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210692143 · doi:10.1177/03635465211070553

Biomechanical Assessment of Knee Laxity After a Novel Posterolateral Corner Reconstruction Technique

2022· article· en· W4210692143 on OpenAlexaff
Thiago Vivacqua, Samira Vakili, Ryan Willing, Gilbert Moatshe, Ryan M. Degen, Alan Getgood

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Sports Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern UniversityFowler Kennedy Sport Medicine Clinic
FundersSmith and Nephew
KeywordsCadaveric spasmLigamentMedicineTibiaTendonFibulaCadaverAnatomyExternal rotationOrthodonticsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Different techniques to restore knee stability after posterolateral corner (PLC) injury have been described. The original anatomic PLC reconstruction uses 2 separate allografts to reconstruct the PLC. Access to allograft tissue continues to be a significant limitation of this technique, which led to the development of a modified anatomic approach utilizing a single autologous semitendinosus graft fixed on the tibia with an adjustable suspensory loop to enable differential tensioning of the PLC components. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to compare the modified anatomic technique with the original anatomic reconstruction in terms of varus and external rotatory laxity in a cadaveric biomechanical model. The hypothesis was that both techniques would restore varus and external rotatory laxity after a simulated complete PLC injury. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Eight pairs of fresh-frozen cadaveric knee specimens were tested to compare the 2 techniques. Varus and external tibial rotation laxity of the knee were measured while applying 10-N·m varus and 5-N·m external rotatory torques at 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° of flexion. These measurements were tested under 3 conditions: (1) intact fibular collateral ligament, popliteal tendon, and popliteofibular ligament; (2) complete transection of the fibular collateral ligament, popliteal tendon, and popliteofibular ligament; (3) after PLC reconstruction with either the modified (n = 8) or the original (n = 8) technique. Results: After PLC reconstruction, varus laxity was restored with no statistically significant differences from the intact condition after both reconstruction techniques. Similar outcomes were observed for external rotation in extension; however, in terms of the external rotation limit with respect to the intact joint, significant reductions of mean ± SD 4.1°± 6.3° ( P = .036) and 5.1°± 6.6° ( P = .016) were recorded with the modified technique at 60° and 90° of flexion, respectively. No significant effect was observed on the neutral flexion kinematics from 0° to 90° of flexion, and no significant differences were observed between reconstructions ( P = .222). Conclusion: Both PLC reconstruction techniques restored the normal native varus as compared with the intact knee. Although the modified technique constrained end-range external rotation at 60° and 90° of flexion, no differences were noted with neutral flexion kinematics. Care should be taken when tensioning in the modified technique so that the tibia is in a neutral position to avoid overconstraining the knee. Clinical Relevance: The modified technique may prove useful in situations where there are limited graft options, particularly where allografts are not available or are restricted.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207