Repair Augmentation of Unstable, Complete Vertical Meniscal Tears With Bone Marrow Venting Procedure: A Prospective, Randomized, Double‐Blind, Parallel‐Group, Placebo‐Controlled Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of meniscal repair in 2 groups of patients: meniscal repair with biological augmentation using a bone marrow venting procedure (BMVP) of the intercondylar notch versus meniscal repair only. METHODS: This single-center, prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm study included 40 patients (21 menisci in control, 23 in BMVP group) with complete vertical meniscus tears. Patients underwent all-inside and outside-in meniscal repair and a concomitant BMVP of the intercondylar notch or meniscal repair alone during an index arthroscopy. The primary endpoint was the rate of meniscus healing in the 2 groups assessed during a second-look arthroscopy (at week 35). The secondary endpoints were changes in the International Knee Documentation Committee score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and visual analog scale in the 2 groups at 30 months. RESULTS: After 36 weeks, the meniscus healing rate was significantly higher in the BMVP-treated group than in the control group (100% vs. 76%, P = .0035). Functional outcomes were significantly better 30 months after treatment than at baseline in both groups. The International Knee Documentation Committee, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and visual analog scale scores were significantly better in the BMVP-treated group than in the control group. No adverse events were reported during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Our blinded, prospective, randomized, controlled trial on the role of BMVP augmentation in meniscus repair, indicates that BMVP augmentation results in a significant improvement in the rate of meniscus healing (100% vs. 76%, P = .0035). The risk of adverse events related to augmentation with BMVP of the arthroscopic meniscal repair is very low. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, randomized controlled trial.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".