A New Approach to Postoperative Rehabilitation following Mosaicplasty and Bone Marrow Aspiration Concentrate (BMAC) Augmentation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Chondral defects in the knee present a significant challenge due to their limited self-healing capacity, often leading to joint degeneration and functional disability. Current treatments, including surgical approaches like mosaicplasty and regenerative therapies such as bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) augmentation, aim to address these defects and improve patient outcomes. Materials and Methods: This study conducted a single-center, randomized controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of different treatment approaches and rehabilitation protocols for chondral defects. Thirty-seven subjects presenting with symptomatic chondral or osteochondral defects (>3 cm2) in the weight-bearing region of the femoral condyle were partitioned into three groups, and underwent mosaicplasty with or without BMAC augmentation, followed by either a 6-week or 12-week rehabilitation program. Group 1 (n = 10) received mosaicplasty combined with BMAC augmentation and engaged in a twelve-week two-phase rehabilitation protocol. Group 2 (n = 15) underwent mosaicplasty alone and participated in the same twelve-week two-phase rehabilitation regimen. Meanwhile, Group 3 (n = 12) underwent mosaicplasty and underwent a shorter six-week one-phase rehabilitation program. Clinical assessments were performed using the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, goniometry for the knee’s range of motion (ROM), manual muscle testing (MMT) for quadricep strength, and the Western Ontario and McMaster University Arthritis Index (WOMAC) for functional evaluation in three test phases. Results: Significant differences in WOMAC scale scores were observed between the three groups at the intermediate (F(2, 34) = 5.24, p < 0.010) and final (F(2, 34) = 111, p < 0.000) stages, with post hoc Tukey tests revealing variations shared among all three groups. The between-group analysis of the VAS scale demonstrated no statistically significant difference initially (F(2, 34) = 0.18, p < 0.982), but significant differences emerged following the intermediate (F(2, 34) = 11.40, p < 0.000) and final assessments (F(2, 34) = 59.87, p < 0.000), with post hoc Tukey tests revealing specific group variations, notably between Group 1 and both Group 2 and Group 3, and also between Group 3 and Group 2. The between-group analysis of quadricep muscle strength using MMT scores revealed no statistically significant differences initially (F(2, 34) = 0.376, p < 0.689) or following the intermediate assessment (F(2, 34) = 2.090, p < 0.139). The one-way ANOVA analysis showed no significant difference in the knee ROM initially (F(2, 34) = 1.037, p < 0.366), but significant differences emerged following intermediate (F(2, 34) = 9.38, p < 0.001) and final assessments (F(2, 34) = 11.60, p < 0.000). Post hoc Tukey tests revealed significant differences between Groups 1 and 2, Groups 1 and 3, and Groups 2 and 3 at intermediate and final assessments. Conclusions: The patients who received BMAC augmentation and completed a 12-week rehabilitation protocol had significantly better outcomes in pain relief, knee function, and ROM when compared to those who did not receive BMAC augmentation or those who completed a shorter rehabilitation period. Our findings suggest that combining mosaicplasty with BMAC augmentation and a comprehensive rehabilitation program can lead to superior clinical outcomes for patients with chondral defects in the knee.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».