Early evidence reports positive outcomes after osteochondral grafts and chondrocyte transplantation in the hip: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance To date, limited literature has explored the outcomes and indications for osteochondral grafts and chondrocyte transplantation in the hip. Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate the indications, investigations, rehabilitation strategies and clinical outcomes associated with treatment of hip cartilage defects with either autologous chondrocyte transplantation, osteochondral allografts, osteochondral autografts or synthetic osteochondral grafts. Evidence review MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed were searched in duplicate for relevant studies, and data were abstracted from included studies. The Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria were used to grade the quality of the studies. Findings A total of 32 studies were included, involving 268 hips and 262 patients. Osteochondral grafts and chondrocyte transplantation were most commonly used for the treatment of osteochondral defects. The chondral lesions treated varied in size from 1 to 15.7 cm 2 . Positive outcomes were reported across numerous standardised outcome scores at a mean follow-up of 28.6 months. The overall complication rate was 3.4%. The rate of patients requiring further surgery was 9.5%. Conclusions The outcomes reported in the literature on the treatment of hip chondral defects with osteochondral grafts and chondrocyte transplantation are generally positive at short-term to medium-term follow-ups. Low rates of complications and patients requiring further surgery were reported. The most common indications for these treatment options are full-thickness osteochondral defects larger than 2 cm 2 in young patients. The indications remain unclear when using these techniques to treat other pathology, including avascular necrosis. A period of 6–12 weeks of restricted weight bearing is recommended in the literature following these procedures. The quality of the literature that currently exists on this topic remains quite low.
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 | 0.014 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".