MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006873970 · doi:10.1177/0363546514523927

Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation in the Patella

2014· article· en· W2006873970 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andreas H. Gomoll, Scott D. Gillogly, Brian J. Cole, Jack Farr, Ryan M. Arnold, Kristen Hussey, Tom Minas

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Sports Medicine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutologous chondrocyte implantationPatellaChondrocyteMedicineGeologyAnatomyCartilageArticular cartilageOsteoarthritisPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cartilage defects in the patella are common, and a subset of patients does not respond to nonoperative measures. While most cartilage repair techniques have demonstrated good outcomes in the femoral condyles, the patellofemoral compartment poses special challenges. HYPOTHESIS: Repair of patellar cartilage defects with autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) will provide lasting improvements in pain and function. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: Patients were treated at 1 of 4 participating cartilage repair centers with ACI for cartilage defects in the patella; bipolar (patella + trochlea) defects were included as well. All patients were followed prospectively for at least 4 years with multiple patient-reported outcome instruments, including the International Knee Documentation Committee, Short Form-12, modified Cincinnati Rating Scale, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and Knee Society scores. Treatment failure was defined as structural failure of the graft combined with pain requiring revision surgery. RESULTS: A total of 110 patients were available for analysis. As a group, they experienced both statistically significant and clinically important improvements in pain and function in all physical outcome scales. The International Knee Documentation Committee improved from 40 ± 14 preoperatively to 69 ± 20 at the last follow-up; the Cincinnati Rating Scale, from 3.2 ± 1.2 to 6.2 ± 1.8; and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, from 50 ± 22 to 29 ± 22 (all P < .0001). Ninety-two percent of patients stated that they would choose to undergo ACI again, and 86% rated their knees as good or excellent at the time of final follow-up. Nine patients (8%) were considered treatment failures, and 16% reported that their knees were not improved. CONCLUSION: Cartilage repair in the patellofemoral joint is arguably not without its challenges. Autologous chondrocyte implantation remains off-label in the patella, a fact that needs to be discussed with prospective patients during the informed consent process. However, when performed with attention to patellofemoral biomechanics, self-rated subjective good and excellent outcomes can be achieved in more than 80% of patients treated with ACI, even in a patient population with large and frequently bipolar defects such as the one presented in this study. However, final functional scores, although significantly improved, still reflected residual disability in this challenging group of patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations153
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207