Purpose: We previously developed learning models for predicting the need for intensive care and oxygen among patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Here, we aimed to prospectively validate the accuracy of these models. Materials and Methods: Probabilities of the need for intensive care [intensive care unit (ICU) score] and oxygen (oxygen score) were calculated from information provided by hospitalized COVID-19 patients (n=44) via a web-based application. The performance of baseline scores to predict 30-day outcomes was assessed. Results: Among 44 patients, 5 and 15 patients needed intensive care and oxygen, respectively. The area under the curve of ICU score and oxygen score to predict 30-day outcomes were 0.774 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.614–0.934] and 0.728 (95% CI:0.559–0.898), respectively. The ICU scores of patients needing intensive care increased daily by 0.71 points (95% CI: 0.20–1.22) after hospitalization and by 0.85 points (95% CI: 0.36–1.35) after symptom onset, which were significantly different from those in individuals not needing intensive care (p=0.002 and <0.001, respectively). Trends in daily oxygen scores overall were not markedly different; however, when the scores were evaluated within <7 days after symptom onset, the patients needing oxygen showed a higher daily increase in oxygen scores [1.81 (95% CI: 0.48–3.14) vs. -0.28 (95% CI: 1.00–0.43), p=0.007]. Conclusion Our machine learning models showed good performance for predicting the outcomes of COVID-19 patients and could thus be useful for patient triage and monitoring.

Background: To compare knee laxity between the conventional round tunnel and oval tunnel techniques in primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in a porcine knee model. Methods: Twenty porcine knees were used for evaluating laxity in terms of anterior translation and anterolateral rotation. The study determined porcine knee kinematics on the Instron instruments under simulated Lachman (89 N anterior tibial load) at 15°, 30°, and 60° of flexion and a simulated pivot shift test (89 N anterior tibial load, 10 Nm valgus, and 4 Nm internal tibial torque) at 30° of flexion. Kinematics were recorded for intact (n = 10), ACL-deficient (n = 10), and conventional round (n = 10) or oval tunnel (n = 10) techniques. All measurements were repeated twice, and the average was used for comparison. Results: Under the Lachman test, the conventional round tunnel and oval tunnel both showed significantly larger anterior tibial translation (ATT) at 30° and 60° compared to the intact knee (p < 0.05), but smaller ATT compared to the ACL-deficient knees (p < 0.05). However, there were no differences in ATT between the conventional round tunnel and oval tunnel techniques (p > 0.05). Under simulated pivot shift at 30° flexion, there was a significant difference between the conventional round tunnel and oval tunnel techniques (round vs. oval: 4.27 ± 0.87 mm vs. 3.52 ± 0.49 mm, p = 0.028). Conclusions Both conventional round tunnel and oval tunnel techniques reduced ATT compared to ACL-deficient knees but failed to restore normal knee stability. However, the oval tunnel technique showed better rotational stability at 30° than the round tunnel technique. These findings suggest that the oval tunnel technique would be a reasonable option in anatomical single-bundle ACL reconstruction.

Background: To compare knee laxity between the conventional round tunnel and oval tunnel techniques in primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in a porcine knee model. Methods: Twenty porcine knees were used for evaluating laxity in terms of anterior translation and anterolateral rotation. The study determined porcine knee kinematics on the Instron instruments under simulated Lachman (89 N anterior tibial load) at 15°, 30°, and 60° of flexion and a simulated pivot shift test (89 N anterior tibial load, 10 Nm valgus, and 4 Nm internal tibial torque) at 30° of flexion. Kinematics were recorded for intact (n = 10), ACL-deficient (n = 10), and conventional round (n = 10) or oval tunnel (n = 10) techniques. All measurements were repeated twice, and the average was used for comparison. Results: Under the Lachman test, the conventional round tunnel and oval tunnel both showed significantly larger anterior tibial translation (ATT) at 30° and 60° compared to the intact knee (p < 0.05), but smaller ATT compared to the ACL-deficient knees (p < 0.05). However, there were no differences in ATT between the conventional round tunnel and oval tunnel techniques (p > 0.05). Under simulated pivot shift at 30° flexion, there was a significant difference between the conventional round tunnel and oval tunnel techniques (round vs. oval: 4.27 ± 0.87 mm vs. 3.52 ± 0.49 mm, p = 0.028). Conclusions Both conventional round tunnel and oval tunnel techniques reduced ATT compared to ACL-deficient knees but failed to restore normal knee stability. However, the oval tunnel technique showed better rotational stability at 30° than the round tunnel technique. These findings suggest that the oval tunnel technique would be a reasonable option in anatomical single-bundle ACL reconstruction.

Background: To compare knee laxity between the conventional round tunnel and oval tunnel techniques in primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in a porcine knee model. Methods: Twenty porcine knees were used for evaluating laxity in terms of anterior translation and anterolateral rotation. The study determined porcine knee kinematics on the Instron instruments under simulated Lachman (89 N anterior tibial load) at 15°, 30°, and 60° of flexion and a simulated pivot shift test (89 N anterior tibial load, 10 Nm valgus, and 4 Nm internal tibial torque) at 30° of flexion. Kinematics were recorded for intact (n = 10), ACL-deficient (n = 10), and conventional round (n = 10) or oval tunnel (n = 10) techniques. All measurements were repeated twice, and the average was used for comparison. Results: Under the Lachman test, the conventional round tunnel and oval tunnel both showed significantly larger anterior tibial translation (ATT) at 30° and 60° compared to the intact knee (p < 0.05), but smaller ATT compared to the ACL-deficient knees (p < 0.05). However, there were no differences in ATT between the conventional round tunnel and oval tunnel techniques (p > 0.05). Under simulated pivot shift at 30° flexion, there was a significant difference between the conventional round tunnel and oval tunnel techniques (round vs. oval: 4.27 ± 0.87 mm vs. 3.52 ± 0.49 mm, p = 0.028). Conclusions Both conventional round tunnel and oval tunnel techniques reduced ATT compared to ACL-deficient knees but failed to restore normal knee stability. However, the oval tunnel technique showed better rotational stability at 30° than the round tunnel technique. These findings suggest that the oval tunnel technique would be a reasonable option in anatomical single-bundle ACL reconstruction.

Background: To compare knee laxity between the conventional round tunnel and oval tunnel techniques in primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in a porcine knee model. Methods: Twenty porcine knees were used for evaluating laxity in terms of anterior translation and anterolateral rotation. The study determined porcine knee kinematics on the Instron instruments under simulated Lachman (89 N anterior tibial load) at 15°, 30°, and 60° of flexion and a simulated pivot shift test (89 N anterior tibial load, 10 Nm valgus, and 4 Nm internal tibial torque) at 30° of flexion. Kinematics were recorded for intact (n = 10), ACL-deficient (n = 10), and conventional round (n = 10) or oval tunnel (n = 10) techniques. All measurements were repeated twice, and the average was used for comparison. Results: Under the Lachman test, the conventional round tunnel and oval tunnel both showed significantly larger anterior tibial translation (ATT) at 30° and 60° compared to the intact knee (p < 0.05), but smaller ATT compared to the ACL-deficient knees (p < 0.05). However, there were no differences in ATT between the conventional round tunnel and oval tunnel techniques (p > 0.05). Under simulated pivot shift at 30° flexion, there was a significant difference between the conventional round tunnel and oval tunnel techniques (round vs. oval: 4.27 ± 0.87 mm vs. 3.52 ± 0.49 mm, p = 0.028). Conclusions Both conventional round tunnel and oval tunnel techniques reduced ATT compared to ACL-deficient knees but failed to restore normal knee stability. However, the oval tunnel technique showed better rotational stability at 30° than the round tunnel technique. These findings suggest that the oval tunnel technique would be a reasonable option in anatomical single-bundle ACL reconstruction.