Quadriceps autograft is a viable graft choice for arthroscopic ACL reconstruction in patients over 50 years of age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the patient-reported outcomes, graft failure, quadriceps rupture and sports preference after arthroscopic ACL reconstruction in patients older than 50 years who underwent arthroscopic ACL reconstruction with a quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft. METHODS: Between 2010 and 2020, prospectively collected data were obtained from an institutional database. Patients older than 50 years with primary arthroscopic ACL reconstruction and a minimum of 2 years of follow-up were included. Patients undergoing a revision ACL reconstruction or undergoing a primary ACL reconstruction using a graft other than a QT autograft, and patients with a contralateral knee injury or osteoarthritis (Ahlbäck stage 2 or higher) were excluded. A minimally invasive technique was used for QT autograft harvesting. Patients were evaluated for pre-injury and 2-year follow-up Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity level, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain, graft failure, quadriceps tendon rupture, and return to sport. RESULTS: A total of 57 patients were included in the study. The mean age of the cohort was 54.9 ± 5.2 (range 50-75). Of the 57 reconstructions, 16 (28%) were isolated ACL reconstructions, while 41 (72%) were complex reconstructions (concomitant meniscus, cartilage and/or collateral ligament injuries). At the 2-year follow-up Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity level and VAS for pain improved to pre-injury level and no significant difference was noted between pre-injury and 2-year follow-up functional scores (n.s.). No case of graft failure or quadriceps tendon rupture was reported. No significant difference was noted in the pre-injury and postoperative sports preference (n.s.) and all patients return to their desired sports activity. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic ACL reconstruction by using QT autograft in highly active older patients provides satisfactory patient-reported functional outcomes and allows recovery of the pre-injury level of activity. QT autograft is a good graft option in patients older than 50 years. 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".