No differences found in long‐term outcomes of a randomized controlled trial comparing ipsilateral versus contralateral hamstring graft in ACL reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Contralateral graft harvest in primary ACL reconstruction is relatively uncommon and the long-term comparative of this approach relative to ipsilateral harvest has not been described. The purpose of this study was to evaluate ACL graft and contralateral rupture following ipsilateral or contralateral semitendinosus and gracilis (STG) graft harvest at follow-up of a minimum 10 years post-reconstruction in the treatment of a complete ACL tear. METHODS: Patients from a previous randomized trial were evaluated. The primary outcome measures were ipsilateral and contralateral reinjury as well as the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) knee assessment form, the ACL Quality of Life questionnaire (ACL-QoL) and the Tegner activity scale. Participants completed four different single-leg hop tests and concentric knee flexion and extension strength were assessed on an isokinetic dynamometer. RESULTS: Of the original 100 patients, 50 patients (41.3 ± 9.5 years of age, 31 males, 19 females) reported on re-injury at 12.6 ± 1.4 years post-operative. Thirty-eight patients returned for full assessment and 12 responded by mail or phone survey. There were no differences between groups for graft rupture, contralateral injury, ACL-QoL score, IKDC categorization, or anterior tibial translation, though both groups experienced a reduction in the Tegner Activity Scale from their preinjury scores. There was no difference in knee flexor and extensor isokinetic concentric strength, or single leg hop test performance. Knee flexor strength limb symmetry index was reduced when measured in the supine relative to the seated position in both groups, indicating persistent deficits in knee flexor strength when measured in the supine position. CONCLUSION: Contralateral hamstring harvest does not put patients at an increased risk of a contralateral ACL tear and long-term outcomes of ACL reconstruction do not differ based on the side of graft harvest. Contralateral STG harvest may provide a safe alternative surgical option for select patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".