Comparative effectiveness of peroneus longus tendon (PLT) autografts versus hamstring tendon (HT) autografts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comprehensive systematic review and meta analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The hamstring tendon (HT) autograft is currently the most widely utilised autograft option for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, recent studies endorse the peroneus longus tendon (PLT) autograft as a viable alternative. To evaluate this, we systematically reviewed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the efficacy of PLT against HT autografts. Our search encompassed Cochrane, Embase, OVID, PubMed, and Scopus databases for RCTs comparing outcomes of PLT and HT autografts in ACL reconstruction. Primary outcomes included Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, while secondary outcomes involved American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores, graft diameters and donor-site complications. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 (Cochrane Collaboration) and heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics. 683 patients from 6 RCTs were included, with 338 (49.5%) patients treated with PLT autografts. Follow-up ranged from 12 to 30 months. Despite lower preoperative Lysholm scores in the PLT group, no significant differences were observed at 6 and 12 months. Although preoperative and 6-month IKDC scores were lower in the PLT group, no significant differences were found at 12 and 24 months. AOFAS scores showed no significant preoperative difference, but slightly lower scores were noted in the PLT group at 12 or 24 months. There was no significant difference in graft diameter, while donor-site complications were fewer in the PLT group. In summary, the PLT autograft is a promising and non-inferior alternative to the HT autograft, demonstrating equivalent outcomes in patient-reported knee and ankle metrics, comparable graft diameters and fewer donor-site complications.
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 | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".