Bridge enhanced ACL repair vs. ACL reconstruction for ACL tears: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear is one of the most frequent ligamentous injuries. The gold standard for ACL tears is autograft reconstruction. However, ACL repair has regained enthusiasm with more recent results showing comparable outcomes to its reconstructive counterpart. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (pp. 1-20) were searched until November 2022. The clinical outcomes consisted of the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), the side-to-side difference in Anteroposterior (AP) knee laxity, the forces of the hamstring, quadriceps, and hip abduction as well as hopping tests. RESULTS: Only two studies were included in this meta-analysis. ACL repair was shown to have better Hamstrings strength. The rest of the analyzed outcomes were comparable. DISCUSSION: This is the first meta-analysis comparing these two treatments. The ACL repair showed no differences in muscle strength (quadriceps and hip abductors), postoperative knee scores, and knee joint laxity when compared to ACL reconstruction. However, it showed better hamstring strength. Further randomized clinical studies will be needed to compare both of these techniques.
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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".