MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405338569 · doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2024.11.093

Repair Fails More Frequently Than Reconstruction in Acute Posterolateral Corner Knee Injuries: A Systematic Review of Outcomes Following Surgical Management

2024· review· en· W4405338569 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alexander E. White, Matthew R Bryan, Terence L. Thomas, Nathan H. Varady, Antonio Cusano, Samarth Venkata Menta, Robert B. Baldwin, Anil S. Ranawat

Bibliographic record

VenueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConMedSmith and Nephew
KeywordsMedicineTearsSurgeryLigament

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose To synthesize the current literature on posterolateral corner (PLC) reconstruction and repair, focusing on a comparison of surgical techniques and outcomes based on injury chronicity in the setting of sports‐related ligament tears. Methods A systematic review of the literature, including queries of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases, was performed in March 2024. Studies were included if they were of Level IV evidence or greater, reported PLC reconstruction or repair outcomes, and had a minimum 2‐year follow‐up. Patient demographics, injury type, time from injury to surgery, surgical technique, subjective patient outcomes, objective physical examination findings, and complications were obtained. Postoperative physical examination findings of varus and posterolateral rotatory stability and reoperation for instability were used to determine surgical success or failure. Means and ranges were recorded for continuous variables. Forest plots were generated for failure rates by subgroup, and an I 2 statistic was used as a measure of heterogeneity. Except for 3 studies, injuries were considered acute when treated within 3 weeks of injury. Quality assessment was conducted using the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale for cohort studies and the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for case series studies. Results Twenty‐nine of the 63 reviewed studies (791 patients) met inclusion criteria. Two of the studies were Level II, 11 Level III, and 16 Level IV evidence. Mean patient age ranged from 19 to 69.1 years. Mean time from injury to surgery ranged from 8.1 to 19 days (acute) and 7.2 weeks to 70.2 months (chronic). Mean postoperative Lysholm scores ranged from 80.8 to 97.0 (acute) and 76.5 to 94.5 (chronic). Mean postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee scores ranged from 59.8 to 87.3 (acute) and 64 to 91.9 (chronic). Within the acute PLC group, 114 (59.3%) patients were treated with isolated repair, and the remaining 78 (40.7%) were treated with reconstruction. Within this group, failure rates, defined by varus stress examination or reoperation, ranged from 0% to 40%. More specifically, reconstruction failure rates ranged from 0% to 15%, whereas repair failure rates ranged from 0% to 40%. All 602 chronic PLC patients were treated with reconstruction, and the failure rate ranged from 0% to 27%, with a single outlier study of 2 patients reporting a 50% failure rate. Conclusions The findings of this review suggest that repair of PLC injuries in the acute setting may fail at higher rates than reconstruction. Additionally, chronic PLC injuries are predominantly treated with reconstruction and experience greater variability in their rates of success compared to acute injuries. Level of Evidence Level IV, systematic review of Level II‐IV studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.008
Bibliometrics0.0120.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArthroscopy The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related SurgerySame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207