MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415430103 · doi:10.1302/1358-992x.2025.10.096

SEMITENDINOSUS AUTOGRAFT VERSUS COMBINED SEMITENDINOSUS AND GRACILIS AUTOGRAFT FOR ANTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT RECONSTRUCTION: A COMPARISON OF FUNCTIONAL AND SELF-REPORTED OUTCOMES IN ADOLESCENT PATIENTS

2025· article· en· W4415430103 on OpenAlexaff
L. Kemp, Nicholas J. Romanchuk, Michael Del Bel, Amy Kerrigan, Ken Kontio, Daniel L. Benoit, Sasha Carsen

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnterior cruciate ligamentHamstringAnterior cruciate ligament reconstructionCohortKnee JointProspective cohort studyRetrospective cohort studyCohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Autograft selection for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in adolescents remains controversial. Hamstring tendon grafts are commonly used and depending on surgical technique, the semitendinosus tendon can be harvested and prepared as a quadrupled graft construct alone (ST) or in combination with the gracilis tendon (ST&G). The purpose of this study was to investigate differences in patient-reported knee outcome scores and objective knee functional outcome variables following ACL reconstruction in adolescent patients who received ST vs traditional ST&G autografts. A prospective cohort study of adolescent patients undergoing ACL reconstruction was used to perform a sub-group retrospective comparative cohort analysis. Either ST in a quadrupled all-inside approach or traditional ST&G autografts with suspensory and interference screw fixation were performed. Graft selection was made through shared decision making and hospital & tool availability. Post-operatively, after clearance for return to full activity, patients completed a series of single leg hoping tasks and a lower limb strength assessment. Demographic and clinical data were collected for all patients including sex, age, days from injury to reconstruction, Tanner stage and BMI. Postoperative objective knee functional outcome variables (drop vertical jump ground reaction forces (DVJ GRFs), isometric knee extension/flexion strength and single leg hop tests) were expressed as limb symmetry indices (LSIs; reconstructed limb/uninjured limb). Participants also completed self-reported knee outcome scores (IKDC and HSS Pedi-FABS). Twenty patients (ST: N=12, ST&G: N=8) were included in this study (Table 1). Patients with ST&G grafts were older (ST: 15.9 years (1.08); ST&G: 17.4 years (0.74), p<0.01), yet there were no significant differences in Tanner stages (ST: 4.75 (0.45); ST&G: 4.37 (0.74), p=0.31), days between surgery and follow up (ST: 272 (205); ST&G: 288 (154), p=0.88) or, importantly, graft diameters (ST: 8.42 mm (0.70); ST&G: 7.94 mm (0.94), p=0.21). There were no significant differences in LSIs between groups for the DVJ GRFs (p=0.87), knee extension/flexion strength (p= 0.83/0.30), hop tests (p>0.14), or subjective outcome scores (IKDC: p=0.48; Pedi-FABS: p=0.76). Mean LSIs for single leg hoping tasks were below 90% in two and three of the six tasks for ST&G and ST groups respectively. For adolescent patients undergoing ACL reconstruction, functional and self-reported outcome measures at return to activity are comparable between patients who received ST versus ST&G autografts. Important for any adolescent ACL reconstruction, the influence of graft and surgical technique remains controversial and poorly understood. Further work is required to improve our understanding of graft selection and technique, with a focus on both functional and patient-reported outcome scores. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedic ProceedingsSame topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesFrench-language works237,207