Repair of Large Chondral Defects of the Knee with Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation in Patients 45 Years or Older
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) has become an accepted option for the treatment of chondral defects in carefully selected patients. Current recommendations limit this procedure to younger patients, as insufficient data are available to conclusively evaluate outcomes in patients older than 45 years. HYPOTHESIS: Cartilage repair with ACI in patients older than 45 years results in substantially different outcomes than those previously reported for younger age groups. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: This prospective cohort study reviewed patients > or =45 years of age at the time of treatment with ACI. The clinical evaluation included a patient satisfaction questionnaire and four validated rating scales: Short Form-36, Modified Cincinnati Rating Scale, WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities) Osteoarthritis Index, and the Knee Society Score. RESULTS: A total of 56 patients > or =45 years of age were treated with ACI. The average patient age at index surgery was 48.6 years (range, 45-60 years). The minimum follow-up was 2 years (range, 2-11 years; mean, 4.7 years). The cohort included 36 men and 20 women. The mean transplant size was 4.7 cm(2) per defect (range, 1-15.0 cm(2)) and 9.8 cm(2) per knee (range, 2.5-31.6 cm(2)). Twenty-eight patients (50%) underwent concomitant osteotomies to address malalignment. There were 8 failures (14%): 6 of 15 (40%) in patients receiving workers' compensation (WC) and 2 of 41 (4.9%) in non-WC patients. Additional arthroscopic surgical procedures were required in 24 patients (43%) for periosteal-related problems and adhesions; 88% of these patients experienced lasting improvement. At their latest available follow-up, 72% of patients rated themselves as good or excellent, 78% felt improved, and 81% would again choose ACI as a treatment option. CONCLUSION: Our results showed a failure rate of ACI in older patients that is comparable with rates reported in younger patient groups. The procedure is associated with a substantial rate of reoperations, mostly for the arthroscopic treatment of graft hypertrophy, similar to that in younger patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".