MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4304099404 · doi:10.1007/s00167-022-07186-x

Isolated medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction results in similar postoperative outcomes as medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction and tibial‐tubercle osteotomy: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

2022· review· en· W4304099404 on OpenAlex
Prushoth Vivekanantha, Harjind Kahlon, Dan Cohen, Darren de

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueKnee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University Medical CentreHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedial patellofemoral ligamentMedicineMeta-analysisConcomitantSurgeryPatellaOsteotomyLigamentSystematic reviewMEDLINEInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose To determine the effect of isolated medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction (MPFLR) versus concomitant MPFLR and tibial‐tubercle osteotomy (TTO) on patient‐reported functional outcomes, rate of patellar redislocation, and rate of return to sport in skeletally mature patients with recurrent patellar instability and lateralization as defined by elevated tibial‐tubercle trochlear groove (TT‐TG) distance. Methods Three databases MEDLINE, PubMed and EMBASE were searched from inception to July 10th, 2022 for literature outlining the management of patients with TT‐TG indices greater than 15 mm with either isolated MPFLR or concomitant MPFLR and TTO procedures. The authors adhered to the PRISMA and R‐AMSTAR guidelines as well as the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Data on functional outcomes via the Kujala anterior knee pain score, redislocation rates, return to sport rates, and complications were recorded. The MINORS score was used for all studies to perform a quality assessment of included studies. Results A total of 31 studies comprising 1405 patients (1452 knees) were included in this review. The mean Kujala score in 13 studies comprising 848 total patients in the isolated MPFLR group was 85.0 (range 80.9–97.5) compared to a score of 83.7 (range 77.2–94.0) in 14 studies comprising 459 patients in the concomitant group. The mean pooled redislocation rate in 19 studies examining isolated MPFLR procedures comprising 948 patients was 3.1% (95% CI 2.1–4.4%, I 2 = 7%) as opposed to 3.2% (95% CI 1.9–5.0%, I 2 = 0%) in 15 studies comprising 486 patients in the concomitant group. The mean pooled return to sport rate in seven studies with 472 total patients in the isolated MPFLR group was 82% (95% CI 78–86%, I 2 = 16%) compared to a score of 92% (95% CI 78–99%, I 2 = 58%) in four studies comprising 54 patients in the concomitant group. There were similar complication rates between both treatment groups, including range of motion deficits, fractures, infections, and graft failures. Conclusion Isolated MPFLR leads to similar anterior knee pain, similar redislocation rates and lower return to sport rates than concomitant MPFLR and TTO procedures in patients with TT‐TG distances greater than 15 mm. Information from this review can aid surgeons in their decision to choose MPFLR versus concomitant procedures for this patient population, and can also guide future studies on this topic. Level of evidence Level 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.702
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it