Drilling Juvenile Osteochondritis Dissecans: Retro- or Transarticular?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis and successful treatment of juvenile osteochondritis dissecans (JOCD) is essential in preventing articular degeneration at a young age. Surgical treatment of stable JOCD lesions failing nonoperative treatment involves retroarticular or transarticular drilling to induce revascularization and healing. Multiple case series report high healing rates and infrequent complications for both retroarticular and transarticular drilling modalities; however, it is unclear from these individual reports whether one mode of drilling provides higher healing rates. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked whether transarticular or retroarticular drilling of stable JOCD lesions results in differing patient-oriented outcomes, rates of radiographic healing, time to radiographic healing, and complication rates. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the short-term clinical outcomes of retroarticular and transarticular drilling of stable OCD lesions. PubMed and additional sources identified 65 studies; 12 studies met inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Heterogeneity and quality of studies limited review to qualitative analysis. No clear differences were seen in patient-oriented outcomes after treatment with either drilling modality. Radiographic healing for JOCD lesions drilled retroarticularly occurred in 96 of 111 (86%) lesions in an average of 5.6 months. Transarticular drilling of JOCD lesions resulted in 86 of 94 (91%) lesions healing by radiography in an average of 4.5 months. No complications were reported for either drilling modality. CONCLUSIONS: Retroarticular and transarticular drilling of stable lesions results in comparable short-term patient-oriented outcomes and radiographic healing. Further high-quality comparative studies are required to adequately compare drilling modalities, clearly define radiographic healing, and patient-oriented outcomes after nonoperative treatment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".