MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283325139 · doi:10.1177/03635465221087365

Clinical and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Outcomes After Microfracture Treatment With and Without Augmentation for Focal Chondral Lesions in the Knee: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4283325139 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Luc M. Fortier, Derrick M. Knapik, Suhas P. Dasari, Evan M. Polce, Filippo Familiari, Safa Gürsoy, Jorge Chahla

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Sports Medicine · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imagingMedicineMeta-analysisRadiologySurgeryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Focal cartilage lesions represent a common source of knee pain and disability, with the potential for the development and progression of osteoarthritis. Currently, microfracture (MFx) represents the most utilized first–line surgical treatment for small, focal chondral lesions. Recent investigations have examined methods of overcoming the limitations of MFx utilizing various augmentation techniques. Purpose: To perform a systematic review and meta–analysis evaluating clinical and radiographic outcomes in patients undergoing isolated MFx versus MFx augmented with orthobiologics or scaffolds for focal chondral defects of the knee. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review was performed to identify studies evaluating outcomes and adverse events in patients undergoing isolated MFx versus augmented MFx for focal chondral defects in the knee from 1945 to June 1, 2021. Data were extracted from each article that met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Meta-analyses were performed for all outcomes reported in a minimum of 3 studies. Results: A total of 14 studies were identified, utilizing 7 different types of injectable augmentation regimens and 5 different scaffolding regimens. Across the 14 studies, a total of 744 patients were included. The mean patient age was 46.8 years (range, 34-58 years), and 58.3% (n = 434/744) of patients were women. The mean final follow–up time was 26.7 months (range, 12-60 months). The mean chondral defect size ranged from 1.3 to 4.8 cm 2 . A post hoc analysis comparing mean improvement in postoperative outcomes scores compared with preoperative values found no significant differences in the improvement in the visual analog scale (VAS), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), or Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores between patients undergoing isolated MFx and those undergoing MFx + augmentation. Patients undergoing MFx + augmentation reported significantly greater improvements in the Lysholm score and postoperative MOCART (magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue) scores compared with the isolated MFx group. Conclusion: Patients undergoing combined MFx + augmentation reported significant improvements in mean Lysholm and MOCART scores, without significant improvements in VAS, IKDC, or WOMAC scores when compared with patients undergoing isolated MFx.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.040
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207