Comparison of medial versus lateral meniscus allograft transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To perform a literature review and meta-analysis evaluating the effectiveness of medial and lateral meniscus allograft transplantation (MAT). METHODS: The literature review and meta-analysis were conducted between August and October 2015 in the People's Hospital of China Three Gorges University, Yi Chang, China. A systematic search was performed in the Medline and EMBASE databases, and the Cochrane Library for relevant literature published through October 2015. The outcomes of the included studies were analyzed in terms of the Lysholm Score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Score, Knee Injury And Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Tegner Activity Score, MRI results, and failure rates. An adapted version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used for the methodological quality assessment in the meta-analyses. RESULTS: The literature review identified 12 observational studies, including 7 retrospective studies, 4 prospective studies, and the nature of one study was not reported. Significant differences in the outcomes of the lateral MAT group and the medial MAT group were observed in the IKDC scores, KOOS pain values, KOOS activities of daily living (ADL) values, and the absolute and relative extrusions observed on MRI, which suggested that the lateral MAT patients experienced superior clinical benefits compared with the medial MAT patients. However, significant differences between the lateral MAT group and the medial MAT group were not observed with regards to the Lysholm Scores, KOOS symptom values, KOOS sports and recreations values, KOOS quality of life (QOL) values, Tegner Activity Scores, VAS for pain values, and failure rates. CONCLUSION: The analysis results indicated that lateral MAT provides superior clinical outcomes compared with medial MAT according to the KOOS and IKDC scores. In addition, greater graft extrusion was observed in the medial group on MRI. Although significant differences were not detected between the 2 groups, the medial MAT patients were more prone to failure compared with the lateral MAT 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 | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".