Remnant‐Sparing Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Results in Similar Clinical, Functional, and Quality‐of‐Life Outcomes to Anatomic Single‐Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To compare a large cohort of patients who underwent remnant‐sparing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (rACLR) with a matched group of patients who underwent anatomic single‐bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with respect to clinical laxity, patient‐reported outcomes, and functional testing. Methods Patients who underwent rACLR between January 2010 and December 2015 were matched according to age, sex, body mass index, and graft type to patients who underwent ACLR. The primary outcome measure was the ACL Quality of Life (ACL‐QOL) score at final follow‐up of 24 months. Secondary outcomes included functional tests and clinical laxity measurements at 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Concurrent intra‐articular pathology at the time of surgery and postoperative complications were also recorded. Statistical analyses included the dependent t test and the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Results A total of 210 rACLR patients were successfully matched to a corresponding cohort of 210 ACLR patients. There were no statistically significant differences in ACL Quality of Life (ACL‐QOL) or functional testing results between the groups; however, scores in both groups showed a steady and statistically significant improvement over time. A statistically significant difference was noted with respect to the Lachman test findings, favoring the rACLR cohort ( Z = –2.79, P = .005); no between‐group difference was seen for the pivot‐shift test ( Z = –0.36, P = .72). The rACLR group had a significantly lower rate of concurrent meniscal and chondral injury. There was no difference in complications between the groups ( Z = –0.49, P = .63). Conclusions There was no difference in patient‐reported or functional testing outcomes in patients undergoing remnant‐sparing compared with anatomic single‐bundle ACLR. There was, however, a significantly lower rate of positive Lachman test findings after rACLR. Furthermore, the rate of concurrent meniscal and chondral pathology was lower in the rACLR group. Level of Evidence Level III, retrospective cohort 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".