Use of cell‐free collagen type I matrix implants for the treatment of small cartilage defects in the knee: clinical and magnetic resonance imaging evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Articular cartilage defects of the knee are a common condition for which several repair techniques have been described. The aim of the present study was to assess medium-term results of a one-step procedure using a cell-free collagen type I matrix. METHODS: Fifteen patients with articular cartilage defects of the knee were treated with an 11-mm-diameter cell-free collagen type 1 matrix implant. The matrices were implanted in a press-fit manner into the defect after careful debridement down to the subchondral bone but without penetration of this margin. Follow-up examinations were carried out at 6 weeks, 6 months, and at 12, 24, 36, and 48 months after implantation. Clinical assessment included the visual analogue scale (VAS), the Tegner activity scale, and the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score. Radiological assessment for graft attachment and tissue regeneration was performed using the magnetic observation of cartilage repair tissue (MOCART) score. RESULTS: A total of 15 patients (males: n = 6 and females: n = 9) with a mean age of 26.4 years (range 19-40) were treated. The mean VAS improved significantly when compared to the preoperative values (P < 0.05). Six weeks after implantation, IKDC values were slightly lower than the preoperative values (n.s.), but increased significantly at final follow-up (P < 0.05). At 24 months, there were no significant differences in the median Tegner score between the post-operative values and the preoperative values (n.s.). However, after 36 months, a significant improvement was noted that lasted at least up to 48 months (P < 0.05). The MOCART score improved consistently up to 4 years after implantation, with significant improvements already observed after 12 months (P < 0.05). No correlation between the clinical scores and the MOCART score could be perceived. CONCLUSION: The present study showed that the use of cell-free collagen type I matrix implants led to a significant and durable improvement in all the clinical and imaging scores investigated 4 years after implantation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".