Strain patterns in normal anterior talofibular and calcaneofibular ligaments and after anatomical reconstruction using gracilis tendon grafts: A cadaver study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BackgroundInversion sprains of the lateral ankle ligaments often result in symptomatic lateral ankle instability, and some patients need lateral reconstruction surgeries to reduce pain, improve function, and prevent subsequent injuries. Although anatomically reconstructed ligaments should behave in a biomechanically normal manner, previous studies have not measured the strain patterns of the anterior talofibular (ATFL) and calcaneofibular ligaments (CFL) after anatomical reconstruction. This study aimed to measure the strain patterns of normal and reconstructed ATFL and CFLs using a miniaturization ligament performance probe (MLPP) system.MethodsThe MLPP was sutured into the ligamentous bands of the ATFLs and CTLs of three fresh-frozen, lower extremity, cadaveric specimens. Each ankle was manually moved from 15° dorsiflexion to 30° plantar flexion, and a 1.2-N m force was applied to the ankle and subtalar joint complex.ResultsThe normal and reconstructed ATFLs exhibited maximal strain (100) during supination in three-dimensional motion. Although the normal ATFLs were not strained during pronation, the reconstructed ATFLs demonstrated relative strain values of 16–36. During axial motion, the normal ATFLs began to gradually tense at 0° plantarflexion, with the strain increasing, as the plantarflexion angle increased, to a maximal value (100) at 30° plantarflexion; the reconstructed ATFLs showed similar strain patterns. The normal CFLs exhibited maximum strain (100) during plantarflexion-abduction and relative strain measurements of 30–52 during dorsiflexion in three-dimensional motion. The reconstructed CFLs exhibited the most strain during dorsiflexion-adduction and demonstrated relative strain measurements of 29–62 during plantarflexion-abduction. During axial motion, the normal CFLs began to gradually tense at 20° plantarflexion and 5° dorsiflexion.ConclusionOur results showed that the strain patterns of reconstructed ATFLs and CFLs are not exactly the same as those in the normal ligaments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".