MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2728594986 · doi:10.4103/ajmhs.ajmhs_2_17

Arthroscopic outside-in meniscal repair: A short-term clinical experience

2017· article· en· W2728594986 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
RantiO Babalola, EmmanuelA Laiyemo, ShopekhaiE Itakpe, Christian Madubueze, OlaoluwaM Shodipo

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Journal of Medical and Health Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgeryTearsMeniscusOrthopedic surgeryVisual analogue scaleAnterior cruciate ligamentArthroscopyPolydioxanoneProspective cohort studyFibrous jointIncidence (geometry)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Meniscal injuries are very common knee injuries that are presented to an orthopaedic surgeon. The goal of our study was to assess the early outcome of outside-in meniscal repair in the management of meniscal tears. Patients and Methods: This study was a prospective case series conducted at the National Orthopaedic Hospital, Lagos. Consecutive cases of patients with meniscal tears who met the inclusion criteria were recruited. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was performed with semitendinosus autograft. Meniscal repair was performed arthroscopically by only two surgeons using the outside-in technique with size 2 polydioxanone suture. The Western Ontario and McMaster University Evaluation Tool (WOMET) score was computed during the pre-operative stage and at least 6-months post-operatively as outcome measure. The visual analogue scale (VAS) and WOMET scores in the pre- and post-operative periods were noted. Results: Five patients with injured menisci underwent meniscal repair. The median duration of follow-up was 14 months (range 8–30 months). Using Barret’s criteria, we determined that a clinically healed meniscus was obtained in only 2 (40%) patients. The WOMET score improved from a mean of 46 (±18) to 20 (±10.7) between the pre- and post-operative stages, and the mean VAS score decreased from 4.6 (±0.5) to 2.5 (±1.3). Discussion: The poor health-seeking behaviour in our environment would explain the delayed presentations of our patients. However, it has been established that chronic tears do heal. Outside-in technique remains at the moment our method of choice for meniscal repair because of the challenges we face for equipment and funding of health care in our environment. Trephination of the meniscus was performed to improve the chances of healing. Using Barret’s criteria, we had a healing rate of 40% (2). Conclusions: The outside-in technique remains an option for the treatment of chronic tears with good clinical improvement in the short term.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.506
Teacher spread0.375 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Journal of Medical and Health Sciences→Same topicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques→French-language works237,207→