Clinical Presentation and Outcomes Associated With Fabellectomy in the Setting of Fabella Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Clinical outcomes pertaining to isolated lateral fabellectomy in the setting of fabella syndrome are limited to small case reports at this time. Purpose: To assess the most common presenting symptoms, clinical outcomes, and satisfaction after fabella excision in the setting of fabella syndrome. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Consecutive patients with a minimum of 21-month follow-up after isolated fabellectomy for fabella syndrome were reviewed retrospectively. Clinical outcome scores of the following domains were collected: Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score and Lysholm knee survey, along with a simple numeric patient satisfaction score (range, 1-10; 10 = “very satisfied”). Statistical analysis was performed using paired t tests for all clinical outcome data. Results: A total of 11 isolated fabella excisions were included in 10 patients with isolated lateral-sided knee pain in the setting of fabella syndrome (8 males, 2 females), with a mean age of 36.9 years (range, 23-58 years) and a mean follow-up of 2.4 years (range, 21-47 months). A total of 8 patients (80%) were able to return to full desired activities, including sports. Only 5 of 11 (45%) excisions had concomitant lateral femoral condyle cartilage pathology. There were significant improvements across multiple WOMAC domains, and the WOMAC total score improved from 28.5 ± 17.6 preoperatively to 11.6 ± 10.2 postoperatively ( P < .05). Lysholm scores significantly improved from 66.6 ± 23.1 preoperatively to 80.2 ± 13.9 postoperatively ( P = .044). Overall patient-reported satisfaction was 8.8 ± 1.6. Conclusion: Fabella excision in the setting of fabella syndrome demonstrated improvements in clinical outcome scores, high rate of returning to preinjury level of activities, and low risk of complications or need for additional surgical procedures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".