Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair With Suture Tape Augmentation of Proximal Tears and Early Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Suture Tape Augmentation Result in Comparable Clinical Outcomes With Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction at 2‐Year Follow‐Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To compare the postoperative side‐to‐side laxity and short‐term clinical outcomes of patients who received primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair with suture tape augmentation, acute anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with suture tape augmentation performed within 8 weeks of injury (ACLR acute ), or ACLR beyond 8 weeks of injury. Methods After institutional review board approval was obtained, 100 patients were enrolled in this prospective trial: 34 primary ACL repair with suture tape augmentation, 33 ACLRs performed within 8 weeks of injury (ACLR acute ), and 33 ACLRs. Patients were allocated to ACL repair if a proximal avulsion was present with good tissue quality (Sherman type 1), confirmed by intraoperative diagnostic arthroscopy. Preoperative side‐to‐side anteroposterior knee laxity was assessed with KT‐1000 arthrometer, and patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) including the visual analog scale, Marx activity scale, Veterans RAND 12‐item health survey (VR‐12 physical & mental), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score survey subscales, and range of motion were collected. These objective and subjective measures were repeated at regular intervals postoperatively through 2 years. Minimal clinically important difference calculations were performed assessing postoperative PRO changes at 2 years compared with preoperative. Results The average time from injury to surgery was 5.03 ± 1.2 weeks for the ACL repair group, 5.09 ± 0.74 weeks for the ACLR acute , and 43.22 ± 33.5 weeks for the ACLR group. Postoperatively, the KT‐1000 side‐to‐side laxity difference for 30 lbs was determined to be 0.1 ± 0.37 (95% confidence interval [CI] –0.7 to 0.8) for ACL repair versus ACLR ( P < .0001), –0.8 ± 0.35 (95% CI –1.5 to –0.1) for ACLR acute versus ACLR ( P < .0001), and 0.8 ± 0.40 (95% CI 0.0‐1.6) for ACL repair versus ACLR acute ( P < .0001). The data reveal ACL repair and ACLR acute are noninferior to ACLR at 2‐year follow‐up. The postoperative difference from baseline for all PROs demonstrated improvement for all PROs. Magnetic resonance imaging at 1 year revealed tissue healing for the 3 ACL injury treatment groups. Conclusions Patients who underwent ACL repair of proximal tears with suture tape augmentation or ACL reconstruction within 8 weeks from injury resulted in noninferior side‐to‐side knee laxity, comparable PROs, and similar range of motion at 2‐year follow‐up compared with ACLR. Level of Evidence Level II, prospective comparative 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".