Clinical benefit of high tibial osteotomy combined with the intervention of platelet-rich plasma for severe knee osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of present study was to investigate the therapeutic effects of high tibial osteotomy (HTO) combined with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for severe knee osteoarthritis (KOA). METHODS: This was a double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. The participants were randomly divided by computerderived random charts into 3 groups: 24 participants in group A (24 knees) received a treatment option of HTO combined with PRP, 25 participants in group B (25 knees) received a treatment program of HTO combined with hyaluronic acid, and 25 participants in group C (25 knees) received a treatment method of HTO combined with normal saline (NS) (physiological control/placebo). The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and visual analog scale (VAS) were measured preoperatively and at the final follow-up. Status of articular cartilage was assessed according to the International Cartilage Repair Society grade and the presence of newly formed cartilaginous tissue by arthroscopy. MRI was completed of knee joint to measure the cartilaginous thickness. RESULTS: Compared to Group B and C, the final follow-up results of knee function in Group A were significantly different (P < 0.001), such as the total WOMAC score 18.54 (SD 4.17), the VAS score 1.72 (SD 0.53). Cartilage regeneration of femur and tibia in Group A was observed in all patients. The cartilaginous thickness in Group A were significantly different (P < 0.001), such as the anterior patella femoral region 3.52 (SD 0.47), the anterior meniscal region 1.16 (SD 0.24), the posterior meniscal region 1.24 (SD 0.26) and the posterior condyle region 2.25 (SD 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of combined PRP to HTO may be a more reasonable choice to relieve knee pain and decelerate the progression of the medial KOA.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".