A Comparison of the Outcomes for Cartilage Defects of the Knee Treated With Biologic Resurfacing Versus Focal Metallic Implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the results of focal metallic resurfacing with biologic procedures in patients more than 35 years of age with isolated, full thickness defects of the femoral condyle. METHODS: A total of 61 patients met the selection criteria resulting in 30 patients treated with biological procedures, including debridement, microfracture, osteochondral autograft transplantation, osteochondral allograft, and autologous chondrocyte implantation (BIO group), and 32 patients treated with focal metallic resurfacing (CAP group). The BIO and CAP groups were matched according to treatment location, defect grade and size, and age profile. Outcomes included Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Short Form-12, and satisfaction. The primary combination endpoint was determined as a 20% improvement (minimum clinically important difference-20) on WOMAC pain and function at 2 years and no additional index lesion-related surgical intervention. Safety and effectiveness were also reported. RESULTS: Thirty patients in the BIO group (mean age of 44.6, range 35-64) had an average follow-up of 2.6 years and 32 patients in the CAP group (mean age 47.9, range 37-68) were followed for 2.0 years. Fifty-three percent in the BIO group and 75% in the CAP group achieved success per the endpoint definition. The mean total WOMAC score improved significantly for both groups (BIO: 57-78; P < .001) (CAP: 41-86; P < .001). The physical component score (Short Form-12 PCS) improved significantly in the CAP group only (30-36.4; P < .001). Good to excellent patient satisfaction was achieved by 80% in BIO and 91% in CAP. There were 4 secondary procedures on the index lesion in the BIO group and 2 in the CAP group. CONCLUSIONS: Careful patient selection can achieve high satisfaction rates with both biological and focal metal resurfacing procedures for the treatment of isolated focal chondral lesions of the femoral condyle in the knee. Focal metallic resurfacing results in similar clinical outcomes and provides excellent success rates at short-term follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III comparative study.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".