Safe and reproducible knee posterolateral portal development using an arthroscopic inside-out technique: A technical note and retrospective case series of current technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There have been many variations of knee arthroscopy posterolateral portal establishment techniques, yet few reports of associated complications. The objective of this study was to describe a standardized inside-out posterolateral portal development technique and to report data on its safety. We conducted a retrospective case series of adult patients who underwent knee posterior arthroscopy using a modified inside-out posterolateral portal development from January 1, 2019, to December 1, 2024. Neurovascular complications were defined as injury to either the popliteal artery, or popliteal vein, or fibular nerve injury with motor function deficit. Other complications were also recorded. A total of 221 patients were included. Most patients underwent knee arthroscopy surgery for posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction (N = 141, 64 %). Other indications included meniscal ramp repair (N = 45, 20 %), posterior pigmented villonodular synovitis resection (N = 19, 9 %), and posterior capsular release for arthrofibrosis (N = 11, 5 %). There were no neurovascular complications recorded in this cohort; however, there were six other complications (N = 6, 2.7 %). The most common other complication was a superficial portal site infection (N = 4, 1.8 %). All portal superficial infections occurred at the posteromedial portal, and none occurred at the posterolateral portal. Establishment of the posterolateral portal using an inside-out technique is safe and resulted in no injury to either the popliteus artery or vein, or fibular nerve.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".