MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405543420 · doi:10.1002/jeo2.70112

Double‐bundle versus single‐bundle medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction for recurrent patellar dislocation: A meta‐analysis

2024· review· en· W4405543420 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Orthopaedics · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLower Extremity Biomechanics and Pathologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMedial patellofemoral ligamentCochrane LibraryRandomized controlled trialConfidence intervalMeta-analysisOdds ratioSurgeryCohort studyOrthopedic surgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose To compare the clinical efficacy of single‐bundle versus double‐bundle reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) for recurrent patellar dislocation (RPD) regarding knee function scores, postoperative complications, and imaging assessments. Methods A computerized search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, China Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China National Knowledge Network (CNKI), and VIP Database was performed for single‐bundle versus double‐bundle reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament for treatment of RPD. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were evaluated for quality using the risk‐of‐bias evaluation tool recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration Network, and Cohort studies (CSs) were assessed using the Newcastle‐Ottawa Scale (NOS) scale. Meta‐analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software and STATA 16.0. Results Thirteen studies were included, four randomized controlled studies, and nine cohort studies. The level of evidence for the four randomized controlled studies was Ⅰ, and the nine cohort studies were Ⅲ. A total of 862 (891 knees) patients were included, of which 448 (465 knees) underwent double‐bundle MPFL reconstruction and 414 (426 knees) underwent single‐bundle MPFL reconstruction. Kujala score (MD = 2.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.11, 4.01], p < 0.05), Tegner score (MD = 0.39, 95% CI [0.11, 0.68], p < 0.05), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score (MD = 4.88, 95% CI [1.46, 8.31], p < 0.05), and postoperative recurrence instability (odds ratio [OR] = 0.12, 95% CI [0.04, 0.44], p < 0.05) were better in the double‐bundle group than in the single‐bundle group. Lysholm score (MD = 0.86, 95% CI [−0.76, 2.48], p = n.s), patellar tilt angle (MD = −0.22, 95% CI [−0.54, 0.10], p = n.s), patellar lateral shift rate (MD = −0.16, 95% CI [−0.41, 0.09], p = n.s), congruence angle (MD = 0.06, 95% CI [−0.41, 0.52], p = n.s), postoperative knee pain (OR = 0.39, 95% CI [0.14, 1.11], p = n.s), and additional postoperative surgical treatment (OR = 0.20, 95% CI [0.01−6.25], p = n.s) had no statistically significant differences. Conclusions Double‐bundle reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament for RPD was superior to single‐bundle reconstruction in both knee function scores and postoperative recurrent patellar instability, and double‐bundle reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament for RPD had better clinical outcomes. Level of Evidence Level Ⅲ, Ⅰ and Ⅲ 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.199
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.164 · 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