Long-Term Followup of the Use of Fresh Osteochondral Allografts for Posttraumatic Knee Defects
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Posttraumatic osteochondral defects of the distal femur or proximal tibia pose a reconstructive challenge for the young active patient. Fresh osteochondral allografts have been used to reconstruct these defects and this report deals with the long-term clinical and radiographic follow-up in this patient population. This is a prospective nonrandomized study. Sixty patients with an average followup of 10 years received femoral condylar grafts. Twelve grafts failed, requiring removing of the graft in three patients and conversion to total knee replacement in nine patients. Kaplan-Meier survivorship showed 95% graft survival at 5 years and 85% at 10 years. Sixty-five patients received fresh osteochondral allografts to reconstruct the tibial plateau with an average followup of 11.8 years. In this group of patients, conversion to total knee arthroplasty was done in 21 patients at a mean interval of 9.7 years. Survival analysis revealed 95% survival at 5 years, 80% at 10 years, and 65% at 15 years. Through our long-term prospective study, we confirm the value of fresh osteochondral allografts to reconstruct articular defects of the knee in the young active patient. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, Level II-1 (prospective cohort study). See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it