MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408239366 · doi:10.1097/bpo.0000000000002953

All-Epiphyseal Versus Micheli-Kocher Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Skeletally Immature Patients: A Systematic Review

2025· review· en· W4408239366 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander Zakharia, Fares Al Katanani, Ahmed Hatem, Prushoth Vivekanantha, Dan Cohen, Darren de

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pediatric Orthopaedics · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnterior cruciate ligamentAnterior cruciate ligament reconstructionOrthopedic surgerySurgeryAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Early physeal-sparing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is considered the optimal treatment method in the skeletally immature population to preserve the integrity of the knee joint while reducing the risk of growth disturbances and angular deformities. Contemporary treatment algorithms recommend the use of all-epiphyseal (AE) or Micheli-Kocher (MK) ACLR techniques in patients with considerable growth remaining. Nevertheless, no research exists comparing the 2 techniques. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to comprehensively compare postoperative outcomes and complication profiles following AE and MK ACLR in skeletally immature patients. METHODS: A systematic search of Embase, Medline, and PubMed was conducted from inception to April 30, 2024. All studies reporting outcomes and/or complications following AE or MK ACLR were included. Screening and data abstraction were designed in accordance with PRISMA and R-AMSTAR guidelines. RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies with 1177 patients were included. AE ACLR and MK ACLR yielded similar results for rates of return to preinjury level of activity (91.8% and 93.4%, respectively), negative pivot-shift (93.9% and 95.2%, respectively) and Lachman test grades (93.9% and 90.8%, respectively), IKDC subjective scores (94.0 and 93.6, respectively), ROM flexion (144.1 degrees and 136.3 degrees, respectively) and hyperextension (2.5 degrees and 3.1 degrees, respectively). AE ACLR yielded a greater risk of growth disturbances, angular deformities, and graft failures (1.5%, 1.3%, and 10.6%, respectively) but a lower risk of contralateral ACL tears (4.2%) relative to MK ACLR (0.0%, 0.0%, 6.6%, and 6.6%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Both AE and MK ACLR yield promising rates of RTS, substantially limit anteroposterior laxity, surpass IKDC thresholds for substantial clinical benefit, and regain fully functional ROM to comparable levels, though they yield marginally different complication profiles. However, the majority of the included studies were moderate-quality or low-quality evidence with high statistical heterogeneity. Therefore, no statistical conclusions regarding the differences in complication profiles can be drawn. Future randomized controlled trials or large prospective cohort studies should compare the efficacy and complication profile of QT autograft AE ACLR relative to MK ACLR.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.304
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pediatric OrthopaedicsSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207