Surgical management of osteochondritis dissecans of the knee in the paediatric population: a systematic review addressing surgical techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Several case series have been published exploring a variety of surgical treatments for osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) in patients 18 years and younger, but a systematic review is currently lacking. This systemic review identifies the various surgical techniques reported in the literature for treating OCD and assesses the effectiveness of these treatments based on functional outcomes and radiographic healing. METHODS: A search of the EMBASE and MEDLINE databases was performed to identify clinical studies reporting outcomes of surgical management of OCD in the knee. A quality assessment of the included articles was conducted independently by 2 reviewers using a quality assessment tool developed by Yang et al. RESULTS: A total of 25 papers including 470 patients aged ≤18 years (516 lesions) met the eligibility criteria and were reviewed. Surgical techniques for stable lesions included (arthroscopic and open) transarticular drilling, either alone (41%) or with bioabsorbable pin fixation (3%), extra-articular drilling (29%) and fixation with bioabsorbable screws (4%) or bone pegs (4%). For unstable lesions, surgical techniques included (arthroscopic and open) fixation with bioabsorbable pins (9%), metal screws (4%), bone pegs (4 %), osteochondral plugs (3%) or bioabsorbable screws (2%), as well as transarticular drilling with bioabsorbable pin fixation (3%) and drilling with metal screw fixation (2%). CONCLUSION: The most common techniques were transarticular drilling for stable lesions and bioabsorbable pin fixation for unstable lesions. The key findings were that the vast majority of lesions healed postoperatively, regardless of technique, and that high-quality trials are required to more appropriately compare the effectiveness of techniques. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review, Level IV.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".