Meniscal Allograft Transplantation in the Adolescent Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To report the results of meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) with minimum 2-year follow-up in an active adolescent population. METHODS: After institutional review board approval, all patients aged 16 years or younger who underwent MAT and had more than 2 years' clinical follow-up were identified from a prospectively collected database. Demographic data were collected and summary statistics calculated. Functional outcome scores were collected preoperatively and at 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and final follow-up. Differences between scores at each time point were calculated using a mixed-model repeated-measures analysis of variance. All prior procedures and reoperations were documented. RESULTS: Thirty-seven MAT procedures were performed in 36 children (84% lateral and 16% medial). For 32 of these procedures (86%), the patients met the inclusion criteria with minimum 2-year follow-up. The mean age was 15.4 ± 1.04 years (range, 13 to 16 years). All patients had undergone prior knee surgery. Of the 32 patients, 23 (72%) were girls and 9 (28%) were boys. Eleven patients had open physes. Forty-eight percent of patients underwent concomitant procedures, mainly for chondral defects. The mean length of clinical follow-up was 7.2 ± 3.2 years (range, 2 to 15 years). MAT resulted in significant improvements in the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index function score, and Short Form 12 physical score. After MAT, 7 patients (22%) underwent 8 surgical procedures, most of which were for chondral disease. The meniscal reoperation rate was 6%. No revision MAT procedures were required. No angular deformities or limb-length inequalities were reported. CONCLUSIONS: MAT resulted in predictable improvements in functional outcomes in the adolescent population. The meniscal reoperation rate was low (6%), no revision MAT procedures were required, and no growth complications were reported. Chondral disease remains the primary reason for reoperation after MAT. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".