Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation of the Knee in Adolescent Patients and the Effect of Physeal Closure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The primary aim was to compare osteochondral allograft (OCA) transplantation outcomes between adolescent patients aged 16 years or younger and those older than 16 years. A secondary aim was to analyze the association between physeal closure status and outcomes. METHODS: Consecutive patients aged 18 years or younger who underwent OCA transplantation with a minimum 2-year follow-up were identified from a prospectively collected database. Patients were divided into 2 groups: those aged 16 years or younger (group 1) and those aged 17 to 18 years (group 2). Outcomes included patient-reported outcomes (PROs), complications, reoperations, and cartilage revision surgery. Outcomes were compared between groups, and physeal status was analyzed as a prognostic indicator. RESULTS: A total of 36 patients met the inclusion criteria: 18 in group 1 and 18 in group 2. There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of demographic characteristics, prior surgical procedures, and surgical details, including concomitant procedures. The mean overall follow-up period was 4.6 ± 2.5 years (range, 2-10.3 years), with no significant difference between the groups (P = .21). There were 10 reoperations (28.8%), 4 in group 1 and 6 in group 2 (P = .47). The overall time to reoperation was 2.8 years and did not significantly differ between groups (P = .75). The failure rate was 5.6%, with 1 patient in each group undergoing either graft debridement or revision OCA transplantation. All PROs were significantly improved postoperatively (P < .05), except for the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index stiffness score (P = .28) and the Short Form 12 mental score (P = .19). There were no significant between-group differences in terms of PROs. Patients with closed physes had a significantly greater increase in most PROs compared with patients with open physes (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: OCA transplantation in adolescents results in significant PRO score improvement and a low failure rate, albeit reoperations are not uncommon. Patients with closed physes show greater PRO score improvement than those with open physes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".