Hamstring tendon graft with LARS augmentation showed superior short-term clinical efficacy compared to hamstring tendon alone as graft in ACL reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There have been emerging clinical trials investigating the efficacy of synthetic-graft-augmented autografts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) in recent years. Hamstring tendon and Ligament Augmentation and Reconstruction System (LARS) are both widely discussed graft choices for ACLR. PURPOSE: To compare the clinical efficacy of hamstring tendon grafts with LARS-augmented hamstring tendon grafts in ACLR. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHOD: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library to identify primary evidence related to the comparison of ACLR with a hamstring tendon (HT) versus a hamstring tendon with LARS (HT + LARS). Quality assessment of the included studies was conducted using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for non-RCTs. Quantitative analysis was conducted with Reviewer Manager 5.4. The primary outcomes compared were the Lysholm scale, Tegnar activity scale, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) evaluation, KT-1000-based laxity, complication/retear rate and rate of return-to-sports. The secondary outcomes were the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS), Global Rating of Change (GRC) scale, hop tests, isokinetic knee strength tests and radiographic and arthroscopic evaluations. RESULTS: Six cohort studies with 710 participants were included in this study. Compared with the HT group, the HT + LARS group had better Lysholm scores at the 1-year follow-up (P = 0.0007) and at the final follow-up (P = 0.04). HT + LARS group had better IKDC scores at the 1-year follow-up (P = 0.003). The HT + LARS group had a better return-to-sports rate in short term. No significant difference in complications or re-surgery was observed. The secondary results revealed superior or non-inferior outcomes in the HT + LARS group. CONCLUSIONS: As grafts for ACLR, the use of hamstring tendons with LARS augmentation, compared with the use of hamstring tendons alone, in the short term, has significantly superior overall functional results and better early sports participation and non-inferior results in other comparisons. In the long term, the use of hamstring tendon with LARS augmentation demonstrated non-inferior results in terms of functional scores, knee stability, knee strength, complications and re-tear rate, etc.
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 | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 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".