MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137673929 · doi:10.1123/jsr.2013-0094

Patient-Oriented and Performance-Based Outcomes After Knee Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation: A Timeline for the First Year of Recovery

2014· article· en· W2137673929 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jennifer S. Howard, Carl G. Mattacola, David R. Mullineaux, Robert A. English, Christian Lattermann

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sport Rehabilitation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
KeywordsMedicineSquatPhysical therapyContext (archaeology)Autologous chondrocyte implantationWOMACTimelineOsteoarthritisWeight-bearingPhysical medicine and rehabilitationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: It is well established that autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) can require extended recovery postoperatively; however, little information exists to provide clinicians and patients with a timeline for anticipated function during the first year after ACI. OBJECTIVE: To document the recovery of functional performance of activities of daily living after ACI. PATIENTS: ACI patients (n = 48, 29 male; 35.1 ± 8.0 y). INTERVENTION: All patients completed functional tests (weight-bearing squat, walk-across, sit-to-stand, step-up/over, and forward lunge) using the NeuroCom long force plate (Clackamas, OR) and completed patient-reported outcome measures (International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, Lysholm, Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC], and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey) preoperatively and 3, 6, and 12 mo postoperatively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A covariance pattern model was used to compare performance and self-reported outcome across time and provide a timeline for functional recovery after ACI. RESULTS: Participants demonstrated significant improvement in walk-across stride length from baseline (42.0% ± 8.9% height) at 6 (46.8% ± 8.1%) and 12 mo (46.6% ± 7.6%). Weight bearing on the involved limb during squatting at 30°, 60°, and 90° was significantly less at 3 mo than presurgery. Step-up/over time was significantly slower at 3 mo (1.67 ± 0.69 s) than at baseline (1.49 ± 0.33 s), 6 mo (1.51 ± 0.36 s), and 12 mo (1.40 ± 0.26 s). Step-up/over lift-up index was increased from baseline (41.0% ± 11.3% body weight [BW]) at 3 (45.0% ± 11.7% BW), 6 (47.0% ± 11.3% BW), and 12 mo (47.3% ± 11.6% BW). Forward-lunge time was decreased at 3 mo (1.51 ± 0.44 s) compared with baseline (1.39 ± 0.43 s), 6 mo (1.32 ± 0.05 s), and 12 mo (1.27 ± 0.06). Similarly, forward-lunge impact force was decreased at 3 mo (22.2% ± 1.4% BW) compared with baseline (25.4% ± 1.5% BW). The WOMAC demonstrated significant improvements at 3 mo. All patient-reported outcomes were improved from baseline at 6 and 12 mo postsurgery. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' perceptions of improvements may outpace physical changes in function. Decreased function for at least the first 3 mo after ACI should be anticipated, and improvement in performance of tasks requiring weight-bearing knee flexion, such as squatting, going down stairs, or lunging, may not occur for a year or more after surgery.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sport RehabilitationSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207