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

Importance Injuries to hyaline cartilage have poor healing potential. Microfracture is often used to treat these lesions; yet, significant variation exists in postoperative rehabilitation protocols. Objective 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. Evidence review 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. Findings 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. Conclusions and relevance 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.011
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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