MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2311915525 · doi:10.1136/jisakos-2015-000028

No difference in outcome between early versus delayed weight-bearing following microfracture surgery of the hip, knee or ankle: a systematic review of outcomes and complications

2016· review· en· W2311915525 on OpenAlexaff
Darren de, Patrick Thornley, Gavinn Niroopan, Moin Khan, Colm McCarthy, Nicole Simunovic, John Adamich, Sahab Jamshidi, Forough Farrokhyar, Devin Peterson, Volker Musahl, Olufemi R. Ayeni

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of ISAKOS Joint Disorders & Orthopaedic Sports Medicine · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHip disorders and treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcMaster University Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWeight-bearingAnkleMEDLINEInclusion and exclusion criteriaSurgeryRehabilitationPhysical therapyProtocol (science)English languageEvidence-based medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ImportanceInjuries to hyaline cartilage have poor healing potential. Microfracture is often used to treat these lesions; yet, significant variation exists in postoperative rehabilitation protocols.ObjectiveTo systematically examine the evidence on the effects of postoperative weight-bearing status after microfracture surgery. We aimed to ascertain the surgical outcomes and complications associated with patients undergoing microfracture surgery for chondral lesions of the hip, knee or ankle assessing for any difference in outcome between early versus delayed weight-bearing postoperatively.Evidence reviewA literature search was performed through five databases (CINHAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Web of Science) identifying studies addressing weight-bearing following microfracture surgery published between 1990 and March 2015. 2 reviewers conducted a full-text review of eligible studies and the references of these included studies. Inclusion criteria included studies conducted on human subjects who underwent microfracture with a described postoperative weight-bearing protocol; had outcomes data reported and were published in English. Exclusion criteria included review articles, non-surgical studies, technique papers and non-English language studies. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria were used to evaluate the quality of the evidence among all included studies and data were abstracted and separated by joint—hip, knee and ankle. Descriptive statistics are presented.FindingsWe identified and included 46 studies (5 hip studies, 22 knee studies and 19 ankle studies) of very low methodological quality. No included hip studies examined early weight-bearing or any functional protocol assessment. With respect to knee microfracture studies, only 20 of a total of 900 patients followed an early weight-bearing protocol. Given the discrepancy between early and delayed weight-bearing sample sizes available, comparative analyses of outcome scores and complications/reoperations were not pursued. With respect to ankle microfracture studies, there were no differences in functional scores and the rate of complications or reoperations between early and delayed weight-bearing groups.Conclusions and relevanceThere is insufficient evidence to draw any meaningful conclusions with respect to differences in functional scores between early versus delayed weight-bearing following microfracture surgery for the treatment of chondral lesions in the hip, knee and ankle. Injuries to hyaline cartilage have poor healing potential. Microfracture is often used to treat these lesions; yet, significant variation exists in postoperative rehabilitation protocols. To systematically examine the evidence on the effects of postoperative weight-bearing status after microfracture surgery. We aimed to ascertain the surgical outcomes and complications associated with patients undergoing microfracture surgery for chondral lesions of the hip, knee or ankle assessing for any difference in outcome between early versus delayed weight-bearing postoperatively. A literature search was performed through five databases (CINHAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Web of Science) identifying studies addressing weight-bearing following microfracture surgery published between 1990 and March 2015. 2 reviewers conducted a full-text review of eligible studies and the references of these included studies. Inclusion criteria included studies conducted on human subjects who underwent microfracture with a described postoperative weight-bearing protocol; had outcomes data reported and were published in English. Exclusion criteria included review articles, non-surgical studies, technique papers and non-English language studies. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria were used to evaluate the quality of the evidence among all included studies and data were abstracted and separated by joint—hip, knee and ankle. Descriptive statistics are presented. We identified and included 46 studies (5 hip studies, 22 knee studies and 19 ankle studies) of very low methodological quality. No included hip studies examined early weight-bearing or any functional protocol assessment. With respect to knee microfracture studies, only 20 of a total of 900 patients followed an early weight-bearing protocol. Given the discrepancy between early and delayed weight-bearing sample sizes available, comparative analyses of outcome scores and complications/reoperations were not pursued. With respect to ankle microfracture studies, there were no differences in functional scores and the rate of complications or reoperations between early and delayed weight-bearing groups. There is insufficient evidence to draw any meaningful conclusions with respect to differences in functional scores between early versus delayed weight-bearing following microfracture surgery for the treatment of chondral lesions in the hip, knee and ankle.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.291 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ISAKOS Joint Disorders & Orthopaedic Sports MedicineSame topicHip disorders and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207