Outcomes of Combined Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction According to GNRB Arthrometer Measurement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: To investigate the prognosis of combined anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction, we used a GNRB (Genourob, Laval, France) arthrometer to measure surgical outcomes. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study reviewed patients who underwent combined ACL and ALL reconstruction and had a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Subjective outcomes, namely the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) evaluation form scale scores and Lysholm scores, were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively. We used a GNRB arthrometer to test the side-to-side laxity under pressures of 134 and 200 N, and we calculated the differential of the slope of the curves. We also recorded complications. Results: Our study examined 18 patients (mean age: 30.56 ± 8.9 years, range: 19–53) with a mean follow-up of 27.37 ± 3.4 months (range: 24–36). Both Lysholm and IKDC scores were significantly improved following the operation. The GNRB arthrometer measured mean anteroposterior laxity side-to-side as 0.76 ± 0.78 mm and 0.82 ± 0.8 mm under pressures of 134 and 200 N, respectively. The mean side-to-side differential slope under 200 N was 3.52 ± 2.17 μm/N. These values indicated that patients displayed no graft tear or low functional knee instability. All patients had a grade 3 pivot shift preoperatively; only two patients had a grade 1 pivot shift postoperatively, with the rest having a negative pivot shift. Conclusions: Our study revealed that combined ACL and ALL reconstruction has an excellent prognosis. GNRB measurement demonstrated excellent stability, and most patients had no residual pivot shift.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".