Microfracture versus Enhanced Microfracture Techniques in Knee Cartilage Restoration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of the microfracture (MFx) and microfracture augmented (MFx + ) techniques for the treatment of cartilage defects of the knee. The PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched from 1 January, 1950 to 1 May, 2019. RevMan5.3 was used to perform statistical analysis. Relative risk was calculated for binary variables, and weighted mean difference and standardized mean difference (SMD) were measured for continuous variables. The 95% confidence interval (CI) of each variable was assessed. Thirteen trials with 635 patients were included. There was a significant difference in the Lysholm's score (SMD = 0.26, 95% CI: 0.01–0.50, p = 0.04) and magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue score (SMD = 14.01, 95% CI: 8.01–20.02, p < 0.01) between the MFx and MFx+ groups. There was no significant difference in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score (SMD = − 12.40, 95% CI: −27.50 to 32.71, p = 0.11), International Knee Documentation Committee score (SMD = 8.67, 95% CI: −0.92 to 18.27, p = 0.08), visual analog scale score (SMD = − 0.20, 95% CI: −2.45 to 0.96, p = 0.57), Tegner's score (SMD = 0.26, 95% CI: −0.67 to 1.18, p = 0.59), modified Cincinnati's score (SMD = − 4.58, 95% CI: −14.31 to 5.14, p = 0.36) and modified International Cartilage Repair Society pain score (SMD = 0.09, 95% CI: −0.37 to 0.55, p = 0.70) between the groups. Results of the pooled analyses of the MFx+ and MFx groups suggested that the MFx+ technique is slightly superior to the MFx technique for the treatment of articular cartilage defects of the knee. Further research is required and future studies should include assessments of the outcomes at long-term follow-ups. Trial registration number is PROSPERO CRD42019135803.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".