Partial Meniscectomy Changes Fluid Pressurization in Articular Cartilage in Human Knees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Partial meniscectomy is believed to change the biomechanics of the knee joint through alterations in the contact of articular cartilages and menisci. Although fluid pressure plays an important role in the load support mechanism of the knee, the fluid pressurization in the cartilages and menisci has been ignored in the finite element studies of the mechanics of meniscectomy. In the present study, a 3D fibril-reinforced poromechanical model of the knee joint was used to explore the fluid flow dependent changes in articular cartilage following partial medial and lateral meniscectomies. Six partial longitudinal meniscectomies were considered under relaxation, simple creep, and combined creep loading conditions. In comparison to the intact knee, partial meniscectomy not only caused a substantial increase in the maximum fluid pressure but also shifted the location of this pressure in the femoral cartilage. Furthermore, these changes were positively correlated to the size of meniscal resection. While in the intact joint, the location of the maximum fluid pressure was dependent on the loading conditions, in the meniscectomized joint the location was predominantly determined by the site of meniscal resection. The partial meniscectomy also reduced the rate of the pressure dissipation, resulting in even larger difference between creep and relaxation times as compared to the case of the intact knee. The knee joint became stiffer after meniscectomy because of higher fluid pressure at knee compression followed by slower pressure dissipation. The present study indicated the role of fluid pressurization in the altered mechanics of meniscectomized knees.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".