Concomitant procedures for knee cartilage injuries—an international Delphi consensus statement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Articular cartilage injuries of the knee are a complex and challenging clinical pathology. Objectives The purpose of this study was to establish consensus statements via a Delphi process on concomitant procedures for knee cartilage injuries. Methods A consensus process on knee cartilage injuries utilizing a modified Delphi technique was conducted. Seventy-nine surgeons across 17 countries participated in these consensus statements. Twelve questions were generated on concomitant procedures, with 3 rounds of questionnaires and final voting occurring. Consensus was defined as achieving 80% to 89% agreement, whereas strong consensus was defined as 90% to 99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was defined as 100% agreement with a proposed statement. Results Of the 12 total questions and consensus statements on concomitant procedures developed from 3 rounds of voting, 0 achieved unanimous consensus, 5 achieved strong consensus, 5 achieved consensus, and 2 did not achieve consensus. Conclusions The statements achieving consensus were primarily related to the tibiofemoral joint, meniscal insufficiency, and ligamentous stability. Concomitant procedures, including osteotomy, meniscal repair or transplantation, and ligamentous repair or reconstruction, should be performed with cartilage procedures for the most optimal outcome. The statements that did not reach consensus were related to the patellofemoral joint and unloading osteotomies in patients with normal alignment.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".