The phrase "augmented group" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts related to mathematics, computer science, or social sciences, where a group is enhanced or modified in some way.
Example: "In our study, we analyzed the behavior of the augmented group compared to the control group to determine the effects of the intervention."
Alternatives: "enhanced group" or "expanded group".
Biomechanical laboratory evaluation demonstrated the augmented group had significantly reduced anteroposterior translation (P less than 0.05) at 52 weeks compared to the nonaugmented group.
Anterior talofibular ligament failure occurred at similar inversion angles in both treatment groups, but the primary anterior talofibular ligament repair required more torque to fail in the augmented group.
The ultimate tensile strength was significantly higher (P less than 0.05) in the augmented group at 4 weeks, but at 52 weeks both groups had attained only 50% of the normal anterior cruciate ligament strength.
In a prospective, randomised controlled trial with GraftJacket Regenerative Tissue Matrix, intact repair ratios were reported to be in 85% in the augmented group and 40% in the control group (Barber et al. 2012).
Furthermore, Linkevicius showed that thickening with an allogenic membrane resulted in significantly reduced initial bone loss (0.21-mm bone loss in the augmented group, 1.17-mm bone loss in the control group after 1-year follow-up) [14].
We have developed an augmented group contribution method that we call Pseudoisomeric Group Contribution PGCC).
The authors found similar clinical outcomes in both groups, but less axial pain and a lower incidence of postoperative complications in the hardware-augmented group.
In the scaffold-augmented group, an hour-glass shaped biomimetic scaffold was wrapped around the tear site so as to cover the femoral and tibial surfaces of the meniscus.
For both the suture repair and scaffold-augmented groups (n = 8 per group), a double horizontal mattress suture technique was subsequently performed in which the sutures were positioned 5 mm medial and lateral to the reducing suture and 5 mm from the tear margin (Fig. 2a, b).
Both the ultimate failure load (~125 N) and stiffness (~19 N/mm) of the repair and scaffold-augmented groups are comparable to reported values using similar suture techniques in cadaveric models (Beamer et al. 2015; Bhatia et al. 2015; Branch et al. 2015; Herbort et al. 2010).
As a test of robustness, we also used the augmented mean group (AMG) estimator (Bond and Eberhardt 2009; Eberhardt and Teal 2010), which also takes into account the issue of cross-sectional dependence.
