Efficacy and safety of high tibial osteotomy combined with platelet-rich plasma for treating knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the Chinese population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the clinical efficacy and safety of high tibial osteotomy (HTO) combined with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for treating knee osteoarthritis (KOA) and to provide evidence of the effectiveness of evidence-based medicine for treating this disease. METHODS: Clinical studies on the use of HTO combined with PRP for the treatment of KOA before September 2024 were identified. The literature that met the inclusion criteria was strictly screened out, the literature information was extracted, and the data were input into RevMan5.4 for analysis. RESULTS: Ten studies (12 controls) with 625 patients were included. Overall, the visual analog scale (VAS) score (mean difference (MD) = -0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) (-0.76, -0.31), P < 0.00001), range of motion (ROM) (MD = 7.24, 95% CI (2.79, 11.69), P = 0.001), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score (MD = -6.91, 95% CI (-9.47, -4.34), P < 0.00001), cartilage recovery (cartilage thickness: MD = 0.43, 95% CI (0.35, 0.51), P < 0.00001; cartilage regeneration: relative risk (RR) = 1.81, 95% CI (1.40, 2.33), P < 0.00001; and the International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) grade: RR = 1.96, 95% CI (1.44, 2.66), P < 0.0001), and the Lysholm score (MD = 6.51, 95% CI (4.97, 8.04), P < 0.00001) after HTO-PRP treatment had certain advantages compared to the control group. After treatment, there was no statistically significant difference in the knee joint mechanical axis angle between the HTO-PRP group and the control group (femoral tibial angle (FTA): MD = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.07, 0.49), P = 0.47; medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA): MD = 0.19, 95% CI (-0.49, 0.88), P = 0.58; posterior tibial slope (PTS): MD = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.49, 0.25), P = 0.53; knee varus angle (KVA): MD = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.77, 1.17), P = 0.69; weight-bearing line (WBL): MD = 1.10, 95% CI (-0.89, 3.09), P = 0.28). CONCLUSION: The results showed that in the treatment of KOA, the HTO-PRP group had better efficacy than the control groups did and had certain safety reliability.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".