MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220871984 · doi:10.1016/j.asmr.2021.12.008

Biomechanical Comparison of Three Suspensory Techniques for all Soft Tissue Central Quadriceps Tendon Graft Fixation

2022· article· en· W4220871984 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle E. Arakgi, Timothy A. Burkhart, Takashi Hoshino, Ryan M. Degen, Alan Getgood

Bibliographic record

VenueArthroscopy Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of TorontoFowler Kennedy Sport Medicine ClinicWestern University
FundersSmith and Nephew OrthopaedicsNational Institutes of HealthSmith and Nephew
KeywordsCadaveric spasmAnterior cruciate ligamentTendonFixation (population genetics)Materials scienceDisplacement (psychology)Fibrous jointMedicineBiomedical engineeringSoft tissueAnatomySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate three different methods of attachment of continuous loop suspensory cortical preparation of all soft tissue central quad tendon grafts compared to a bone block control for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction on construct displacement and load to failure. Methods Thirty‐two cadaveric central quadriceps tendon (CQT) specimens were harvested, using three clinical techniques for graft fixation: cortical button alone (BTB EB), BTB cortical button with rip‐stop suture (BTB RS), and continuous loop cortical button (BTB CL). A control group was also included that consisted of a bone block secured within testing clamps (BTB CON). Specimens were preloaded to 150 N. Tendons were then cyclically loaded between 50 N and 250 N for 1,000 cycles at .5 Hz. Displacement was measured at the point of fixation of the CQT after the 150 N preload, 250 N initial load and every 100th cycle. The specimens were loaded to failure after 1,000 cycles. Results There was a significant increase in displacement from .32 ± .56 mm for the BTB CON to 1.91 ± 1.13 mm for the BTB RS ( P = .014) and 3.85 ± 2.32 mm for the BTB CL condition ( P = .023). There was no significant increase in displacement for BTB EB ( P = .182). Failure occurred for all of the BTB CL and 62.5% of the BTB EB specimens within the first 50 cycles. Twenty‐five percent of the BTB CON specimens and 12.5% BTB RS failed at ∼400 and 500 cycles, respectively. Similar failure loads were observed for the BTB CON and the BTB RS (446.4 ± 151.46 N vs 505.74 ± 131.41 N; P = .99) Failure testing was not feasible for the BTB CL and BTB EB preparation methods. Conclusion In response to cyclic loading, the three all‐soft tissue suspensory conditions experienced significantly greater displacement compared to the bone block controls. None of the soft‐tissue conditions appeared superior when compared to each other. Clinical Relevance It remains unknown which method of soft‐tissue suspensory provides optimal fixation. As these autografts become more common, it is essential to evaluate which fixation methods provide superior outcomes

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.460
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.320 · 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.

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

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthroscopy Sports Medicine and RehabilitationSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207