Trochleoplasty provides good clinical outcomes and an acceptable complication profile in both short and long-term follow-up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to report on the global distribution and clinical outcomes of published articles related to trochleoplasty. METHODS: The online databases OVID Medline, OVID EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for the literature assessing trochleoplasty performed for lateral patellofemoral instability (LPI). Study data were abstracted looking at global trends in the literature, as well as clinical and patient-reported outcomes following this technique. RESULTS: For the assessment of global distribution, 29 studies including 998 patients met the inclusion criteria. The majority of the studies were conducted in Europe (93%) and most used an open thin flap technique (52%). For the secondary analysis of clinical outcomes, 21 studies were included with significant heterogeneity in patient selection, reporting on the degree of trochlear dysplasia, and patient-reported outcomes. All trochleoplasty techniques showed statistically significant improvement in clinical outcomes at average 50 months (range 3-228 months) post-operative, with most patients being satisfied with their procedure. Re-dislocation and complication rates were low. CONCLUSIONS: European centers have published majority of data on trochleoplasty surgery, which has been shown to be an acceptable procedure for patients with high-grade trochlear dysplasia and LPI. Trochleoplasty has demonstrated good clinical outcomes, a low re-dislocation rate, and an acceptable complication profile in both short and long-term follow-up. This study highlights the difficulty in reporting outcomes in this group of patients due to heterogeneity in patient selection, grading of trochlear dysplasia, and the lack of disease-specific outcome measures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
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 | 0.010 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".