MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412953853 · doi:10.1002/jeo2.70390

Impact of tibial supplementary fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction for soft tissue auto and allografts: Modest enhancement in stability and increased incidence of pain: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

2025· review· en· W4412953853 on OpenAlex
Jiahao Gao, Chenyu Wang, Zheng Xu, Jinshuo Tang, Jinrui Zhang, Jianlin Zuo

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 · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJilin UniversityPeople's Government of Jilin ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineLachman testAnterior cruciate ligamentCochrane LibraryRandomized controlled trialAnterior cruciate ligament reconstructionConfidence intervalSurgeryMeta-analysisOdds ratioNonunionOrthopedic surgerySubgroup analysisInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose To evaluate whether the joint function, stability and safety of tibial supplementary fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is superior compared with tibial screw fixation alone. Methods PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched, tracking until 12 April 2025. Eligible studies included published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and low‐risk cohort studies comparing clinical outcomes and complications between tibial screw interference with supplementary fixation (Group I) and tibial screw interference alone or with a sheath (Group II). RCTs were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, while cohort studies were evaluated with the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and Methodological index for non‐randomized studies. Model selection (random or fixed‐effects) was based on data heterogeneity. Results This meta‐analysis included eight studies with 943 patients (Group I: 386, Group II: 557). Group I showed no significant differences in side‐to‐side difference (SSD) in the sheath subgroup at 24 months, SSD <3 mm at 9.1 kg at 12 and 24 months, or manual maximum testing at 24 months, Pivot test at 8–12 and 24 months, Lachman test at 8–12 months, International Knee Documentation Committee objective and subjective score at 24 months compared to Group II. Group I demonstrated statistically significant reductions in SSD (mean difference: −1.02; 95% CI: −1.79 to −0.25; p = 0.009) in the no‐sheath subgroup and lower Lachman test positivity (odds ratio [OR] = 0.30; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13–0.71; p = 0.01) at 24 months. Ligament retear rates were similar; however, Group I experienced a substantially higher incidence of kneeling pain (OR = 6.28; 95% CI: 1.86–2.25; p < 0.01), an outcome that could adversely affect patient comfort and long‐term functional recovery. Conclusion Enhanced supplementary tibial fixation with soft tissue autografts and allografts offers similar joint function and a modest enhancement of stability compared to tibial interference screw fixation alone, but is associated with a higher incidence of pain. Level of Evidence Level III, retrospective cohort studies have been analysed, alongside RCTs, and thus this is the level of evidence.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.251
Threshold uncertainty score0.867

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.348 · 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