Estimated diameter increase from a 4S to a 6S hamstring graft configuration – A cadaveric study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Graft diameter in anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions has been shown to influence the risk of failure. It is therefore important to be able to adjust the graft configuration to modify the diameter. To measure the impact of a 6-strand (6S) hamstring autograft configuration on graft diameter compared to the standard 4-strand (4S) configuration. METHODS: Cadaveric study on 33 knees, using the usual hamstring graft harvesting technique. Semitendinosus and gracilis tendons were harvested and their length, width, and diameter were measured in 4S and 6S configurations separately by three evaluators. RESULTS: 6S configuration leads to a median increase of 1.5 (range: 0.0-2.0) mm in diameter compared to 4S (p < 0.001). A graft diameter of more than 8 mm is attained in less than a third of 4S grafts within this population in comparison to 84% when the 6S configuration is used. DISCUSSION: The 6S hamstring graft configuration increases the graft diameter by a median of 1.5 millimeters compared to the traditional 4S configuration. It can reliably be used to obtain an 8.5 mm graft diameter or more in cases where the semitendinosus measures at least 270.5 mm and the 4S configuration has a diameter of 7.5 mm or 8 mm. This information helps to better delineate the impact of a 6S configuration in a pre-operative or intra-operative setting to optimize the decisional process and surgical flow and to easily adapt the graft diameter. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V (cadaveric study).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".