Platelet-Rich Plasma Treatments of Horizontal Meniscal Tears: A Comparative Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background : Meniscus injuries remain the most common indication for orthopedic surgery. Due to advances in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the number of patients diagnosed with meniscus injuries that do not extend into the articular surface has increased. Although treatments of complete meniscal tears are defined, treatment of meniscus injuries that do not extend into the articular surface is not clear yet. Objective : To determine the most optimal way of delivering platelet-rich plasma (PRP) into the knee joint for treatment of meniscus injuries (not extending into the articular surface) so that patients would improve clinically, and it would have also an effect on the meniscus shown on MRI. Materials and methods : We studied treatment results in 87 patients (50 men and 37 women). The patients were divided into 2 groups: group 1 received an ultrasound-guided PRP injection into the posterior horn, and group 2 received a standard intra-articular PRP injection via the superolateral approach. The treatment efficacy was assessed using visual analog scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) index, Lysholm score, and Knee Society Score (KSS). We also assessed changes on MRI 6 and 12 months after treatment. Results : The comparative analysis demonstrated that based on the findings of scores and MRI the ultrasound-guided intrameniscal PRP injection is more effective. Conclusions : Our results show that the intrameniscal PRP injection is a more effective and safe way to treat such meniscus injuries.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".