Quadriceps tendon autograft for pediatric anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction results in promising postoperative function and rates of return to sports: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the performance of the quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft in pediatric anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, PubMed, and EMBASE was conducted on March 1, 2021. Studies of all levels of evidence reporting outcomes and/or complications after QT autograft ACLR in pediatric patients (≤ 18 years old) were eligible for inclusion. Study demographics, patient demographics, reported outcomes, and complications were abstracted. Screening and data abstraction were designed in accordance with PRISMA and R-AMSTAR guidelines. Descriptive statistics were presented when applicable, with data for heterogeneous outcomes presented in narrative summary fashion. RESULTS: A total of 14 studies examining 596 patients (46.3% female), mean age 15.4 years, were included in this systematic review. Mean postoperative Lysholm scores ranged from 94.0 to 99.5. Mean postoperative IKDC subjective scores ranged from 75.9 to 94.0. Limb symmetry index ranged from 96.8 ± 10.4 to 100.4 ± 7.6% across multiple hop tests. Return to sports (RTS) rates ranged from 88.9 to 91.7%. Eleven studies reported postoperative complications, whereby 16 patients (4.8%) experienced contralateral complications and injuries. Forty-six patients (9.4%) experienced ipsilateral complications, including ten graft failures (2.5%) and two growth disturbances (0.6%). CONCLUSIONS: QT autograft ACLR in the pediatric population retains the potential of regaining a preinjury level of knee stability, and yields promising postoperative function and rates of RTS, yielding comparable outcomes relative to HT autograft and the reference-standard BPTB ACLR that have previously been described in the literature. Moreover, use of the QT autograft is associated with low rates of postoperative complications, including graft failure and growth disturbances in this active and high-risk patient population in observational studies to date. Therefore, clinical equipoise exists to further appraise the influence of QT autograft on postoperative outcomes compared to aforementioned autograft options in a randomized control trial fashion. 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 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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".