Outcomes of cartilage repair techniques for chondral injury in the hip—a systematic review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE/PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to assess the options of treatment and their related outcomes for chondral injuries in the hip based on the available evidence whilst highlighting new and innovative techniques. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature from PubMed (Medline), EMBASE, Google Scholar, British Nursing Index (BNI), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) was undertaken from their inception to March 2017 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Clinical outcome studies, prospective/retrospective case series and case reports that described the outcome of cartilage repair technique for the chondral injury in the hip were included. Studies on total hip replacement, animal studies, basic studies, trial protocols and review articles were excluded. RESULTS: The systematic review found 21 relevant papers with 596 hips. Over 80% of the included studies were published in or after 2010. Most studies were case series or case reports (18 studies, 85.7%). Arthroscopy was used in 11 studies (52.4%). The minimum follow-up period was six months. Mean age of the participants was 37.2 years; 93.5% of patients had cartilage injuries of the acetabulum and 6.5% of them had injuries of the femoral head. Amongst the 11 techniques described in the systematic review, autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis, osteochondral autograft transplantation and microfracture were the three frequently reported techniques. CONCLUSION: Over ten different techniques are available for cartilage repair in the hip, and most of them have good short- to medium-term outcomes. However, there are no robust comparative studies to assess superiority of one technique over another, and further research is required in this arena.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it