Total Knee Replacement in Previous Recipients of Fresh Osteochondral Allograft Transplants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fresh osteochondral allograft transplantation is a treatment option for young patients with osteochondral lesions of the knee. The present study evaluated the surgical complexity of, and the prevalence of complications related to, total knee arthroplasty in patients who had had a previous osteochondral graft transplantation. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on thirty-three consecutive patients (thirty-five knees) who underwent total knee arthroplasty from 1974 to 2000 after having had a previous transplantation of a fresh osteochondral allograft into the same knee. The mean duration of follow-up was ninety-two months. Perioperative data were analyzed with regard to etiology, preoperative impairment, intraoperative technical complications, early and late postoperative complications, and postoperative functional and subjective outcomes. The Knee Society clinical rating system was used for clinical evaluation beginning in 1990. RESULTS: Four knees required additional techniques for exposure. Three knees required stemmed components, one knee required a tibial augment, and two knees required morselized grafts. The mean Knee Society objective score (available for eighteen knees) improved from 34.7 preoperatively to 87.9 at the time of the latest follow-up, and the mean Knee Society function score improved from 45 to 82. The mean range of motion of all knees improved from 85 degrees to 105 degrees . Six of the thirty-five knees underwent revision total knee arthroplasty because of aseptic loosening, with two knees being revised within two years after the index total knee arthroplasty. CONCLUSIONS: Total knee arthroplasty after previous fresh osteochondral allograft transplantation provides improvements in knee function and range of motion, with manageable technical difficulties. Compared with routine total knee arthroplasty, an increased rate of early revision can be expected.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".