A Partial‐Thickness Quadriceps Autograft Reliably Augments the Size of the Hamstring Graft During Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To measure the increase in diameter resulting from the augmentation of a hamstring autograft with a partial width rectus femoris tendon band in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Methods: Thirty-three cadaveric knees were dissected to harvest semitendinosus and gracilis tendons (4S) along with a 6-mm wide tendon band from the rectus femoris. Harvesting was done according to the usual surgical techniques of both harvests. Measures of length and diameter in 4S and 4S augmented with the rectus femoris band (4S +Q) configurations were performed separately by 3 evaluators. Results: The quadriceps augmentation led to an average increase of 1.49 mm (95% confidence interval 1.03-1.95 mm) in diameter of the 4-strand hamstring grafts. The previously demonstrated threshold diameter of 8.5 mm was attained in only 30% of 4S grafts within this population in comparison with 88% when augmented with a quadriceps band. Conclusions: In conclusion, supplementing doubled hamstring graft (4S) with quadricipital tendon in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) increases the graft diameter by an average of 1.49 mm. It has the physical potential to reliably augment hamstring grafts that measure 7.5 mm in diameter or more in order to obtain an 8.5 mm when necessitated. Clinical Relevance: Increased graft diameter is associated with a decreased risk of graft failure after ACLR. Because of this, it is important to identify methods to increase the size of grafts. This study investigates the use of a partial-width rectus femoris tendon band as an option to reliably augment graft sizes during ACLR.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".