Effect of Press-Fit Size on Insertion Mechanics and Cartilage Viability in Human and Ovine Osteochondral Grafts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The osteochondral allograft procedure uses grafts constructed larger than the recipient site to stabilize the graft, in what is known as the press-fit technique. This research aims to characterize the relationships between press-fit size, insertion forces, and cell viability in ovine and human osteochondral tissue. Design Human (4 donors) and ovine (5 animals) articular joints were used to harvest osteochondral grafts (4.55 mm diameter, N = 33 Human, N = 35 Ovine) and create recipient sites with grafts constructed to achieve varying degrees of press fit (0.025-0.240 mm). Donor grafts were inserted into recipient sites while insertion forces were measured followed by quantification of chondrocyte viability and histological staining to evaluate the extracellular matrix. Results Both human and ovine tissues exhibited similar mechanical and cellular responses to changes in press-fit. Insertion forces (Human: 3-169 MPa, Ovine: 36-314 MPa) and cell viability (Human: 16%-89% live, Ovine: 2%-76% live) were correlated to press-fit size for both human (force: r = 0.539, viability: r = −0.729) and ovine (force: r = 0.655, viability: r = −0.714) tissues. In both species, a press-fit above 0.14 mm resulted in reduced cell viability below a level acceptable for transplantation, increased insertion forces, and reduced linear correlation to press-fit size compared to samples with a press-fit below 0.14 mm. Conclusions Increasing press-fit size required increased insertion forces and resulted in reduced cell viability. Ovine and human osteochondral tissues responded similarly to impact insertion and varying press-fit size, providing evidence for the use of the ovine model in allograft-related research.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".