Do Outcomes of Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation Differ Based on Age and Sex? A Comparative Matched Group Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effect of patient age or sex on outcomes after osteochondral allograft transplantation (OCA) has not been assessed. PURPOSE: To determine clinical outcomes for male and female patients aged ≥40 years undergoing OCA compared with a group of patients aged <40 years. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A review of prospectively collected data of consecutive patients who underwent OCA by a single surgeon with a minimum follow-up of 2 years was conducted. The reoperation rate, failure rate, and patient-reported outcome scores were reviewed. All outcomes were compared between patients aged <40 or ≥40 years, with subgroup analyses conducted based on patient sex. Failure was defined as revision OCA, conversion to knee arthroplasty, or gross appearance of graft failure at second-look arthroscopic surgery. Descriptive statistics, Fisher exact or chi-square testing, and Mann-Whitney U testing were performed, with P < .05 set as significant. RESULTS: A total of 170 patients (of 212 eligible patients; 80.2% follow-up) who underwent OCA with a mean follow-up of 5.0 ± 2.7 years (range, 2.0-15.1 years) were included, with 115 patients aged <40 years (mean age, 27.6 ± 7.3 years; 58 male, 57 female) and 55 patients aged ≥40 years (mean age, 44.9 ± 4.0 years; 33 male, 22 female). There were no differences in the number of pre-OCA procedures between the groups ( P = .085). There were no differences in the reoperation rate (<40 years: 38%; ≥40 years: 36%; P = .867), time to reoperation (<40 years: 2.12 ± 1.90 years; ≥40 years: 3.43 ± 3.43 years; P = .126), or failure rate (<40 years: 13%; ≥40 years: 16%; P = .639) between the older and younger groups. Patients in both groups demonstrated significant improvement in Lysholm (both: P < .001), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) (both: P < .001), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) (both: P < .001), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) (both: P < .001), and Short Form-12 (SF-12) physical (both: P < .001) scores compared with preoperative values. Patients aged ≥40 years demonstrated significantly higher KOOS symptom ( P = .015) subscores compared with patients aged <40 years. There were no significant differences in the number of complications, outcome scores, or time to failure between the sexes. In patients aged <40 years, female patients experienced failure significantly more quickly than male patients ( P = .039). In contrast, in patients aged ≥40 years, male patients experienced failure significantly more quickly than female patients ( P = .046). CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence that OCA is a safe and reliable treatment option for osteochondral defects in patients aged ≥40 years. Male and female patients had similar outcomes. Patients aged <40 years demonstrated lower KOOS symptom subscores postoperatively compared with older patients, potentially attributable to higher expectations of return to function postoperatively as compared with older 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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".