Percutaneous cartilage injection: A prospective animal study on a rabbit model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cartilage grafting is a useful technique in nasal reconstruction. Implantation of a whole graft is usually done through an incision. Crushed cartilage can also be used. Injection of cartilage could be an alternative to implantation. The objective of this study is to compare the long-term viability of percutaneously injected crushed auricular cartilage to surgically implanted cartilage in the rabbit. METHODS: Auricular cartilage was harvested bilaterally in 10 New Zealand white rabbits. A 1 cm² cartilage graft was implanted surgically on the upper nasal dorsum. The remaining cartilage was crushed and percutaneously injected on the lower nasal dorsum. Volume and mass of each graft were compared between pre-implantation and after 3 months of observation. A histological study was conducted to evaluate chondrocyte viability and degree of fibrosis on pre and post-implantation cartilage. RESULTS: Mass and volume remained similar for surgically implanted cartilage grafts. Mass and volume diminished by an average of 47% and 40% respectively after 3 months for the injected crushed cartilage grafts. Chondrocyte viability was an average of 25% lower in the injected grafts. CONCLUSIONS: Cartilage injection is a promising technique that must be refined to increase chondrocyte viability. Developing an appropriate injection apparatus would improve this technique.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".