Quality of life during the wait for ruptured anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is a lack of prospective evidence to guide surgeons when making recommendations about the appropriate timing of surgical intervention for ruptured anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), activity modifications to reduce the risk of secondary injury before surgery, and the short- and long-term risks associated with delayed ACL reconstruction. This study aimed to determine whether longer wait times are associated with a prolonged decrease in quality of life and an increased incidence of secondary joint injury after ACL rupture. Methods: We recruited 53 patients who presented between 2013 and 2017 at a single sports medicine minor injury clinic with a suspected acute ACL rupture, based on clinical examination; ACL rupture was confirmed on magnetic resonance imaging. Patients were randomly allocated to undergo early reconstruction (< 12 wk after injury) or reconstruction after a regular wait time (≥ 12 wk). We compared scores on the ACL quality of life measure (ACL-QOL) and the incidence of secondary knee injury at baseline and at surgery between the 2 groups. Participants also completed the Tegner scale (level of activity) at the time of consent and within 7 days before surgery. Results: Twenty-eight patients were randomly assigned to the early surgery group and 25 patients to the regular wait time group. There was no difference in mean age between the 2 groups. There were no between-group differences in mean ACL-QOL score at the time of injury (28.5 [standard deviation (SD) 12.5] v. 28.5 [SD 12.6]) or at surgery (34.9 [SD 17.5] v. 38.0 [SD 17.5]). The mean wait time was significantly longer in the regular wait time group than in the early surgery group (29.6 wk [SD 13.2 wk] v. 10.6 wk [SD 5.1 wk], p = 0.001). In both groups, Tegner scale scores were significantly lower after than before ACL rupture (p < 0.001) and remained low while patients waited for surgery. There were no between-group differences in the incidence of chondral or meniscal injury at surgery, although the study was not adequately powered to draw any statistical conclusions. Conclusion: Wait time for ACL reconstruction may affect patients’ quality of life, as it remained diminished for a longer period when surgery was delayed. A low activity level during the waiting period was observed in both groups; this low activity level may be one reason why no between-group differences in the incidence of secondary injury were observed. The findings suggest that patients with a limited activity level during the waiting period have a low risk of secondary injuries.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".