Primary ACL repair in a selected patient cohort: A prospective single cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears are common knee injuries, particularly in physically active individuals. While ACL reconstruction (ACL-R) is the standard treatment, it has notable limitations. Recent interest in primary ACL repair offers a potential alternative, especially for specific tear types and patient demographics. Purpose: To evaluate the outcomes of primary ACL repair in a selected patient cohort with strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, focusing on the survival of the procedure, functional outcomes, and factors influencing success rates. Methods: This prospective single cohort study included 61 patients who underwent primary ACL repair between June 2016 and June 2022. Patients were 50 years or younger, with recent ACL injuries and no previous knee surgeries or multiligament injuries. The primary outcomes were the survival of the repair beyond two years, measured by revision rates, and functional outcomes assessed using the Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity scale, and Lachmeter stability measurements. Results: Fifty-four patients completed a minimum follow-up of three years (average 49.6 months). The overall success rate was 82.2 %, with Sherman type 1 tears showing significantly fewer failures compared to type 2 (4.3 % vs. 31.8 %). The mean Lysholm score for successful repairs was 96, and the Tegner score dropped from a pre-injury average of 6 to 5. Adolescents had the highest failure rate (50 %), while other age groups showed better outcomes. The mean side-to-side difference in stability was 1.4 mm, favoring the control side. Conclusion: Primary ACL repair is a viable option for selected patients, particularly those with Sherman type 1 tears. While age and tear type significantly affect outcomes, the procedure shows promising results with high functional scores in successful repairs. Further research with larger cohorts and extended follow-ups is necessary to validate these findings and refine patient selection criteria. Primary ACL repair offers a less invasive alternative to ACL reconstruction, with potential for comparable outcome.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".