MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405079076 · doi:10.1177/23259671241297970

Arthroscopic Autologous Minced Cartilage Implantation of Cartilage Defects in the Knee: A 2-Year Follow-up of 62 Patients

2024· article· en· W4405079076 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stefan Schneider, Robert Ossendorff, Sebastian G. Walter, Moritz Berger, Christoph Endler, René Kaiser, Ansgar Ilg, Gian M. Salzmann, Johannes Holz

Bibliographic record

VenueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAmerican Orthopaedic Society for Sports MedicineArthrex
KeywordsMedicineCartilageWOMACOsteoarthritisMagnetic resonance imagingSurgeryVisual analogue scaleConcomitantGold standard (test)Radiological weaponRadiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Symptomatic cartilage defects of the knee joint are frequently diagnosed and can be treated with different available surgical methods. Nevertheless, there is currently no gold standard treatment for all indications. Minced cartilage implantation is increasingly coming into focus as a refined surgical technique. Purpose: To investigate the 2-year clinical and radiological outcomes of arthroscopic autologous minced cartilage repair with the standardized commercial implantation system AutoCart. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A total of 62 consecutive patients were included and prospectively evaluated preoperatively and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Outcomes were assessed using the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and Tegner activity scale at all follow-up time points. The examination of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed using the Area Measurement and Depth and Underlying Structures (AMADEUS) score, and the examination of MRI at 24 months was performed using the Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue (MOCART) 2.0 score. Results: < .001). The secondary outcome measures of the VAS, WOMAC, and SANE showed a similar pattern, with score improvements in the follow-up period compared to baseline. The mean AMADEUS score was 64.75 ± 13.87, while the mean MOCART 2.0 score was 62.88 ± 9.86, among 20 available patients. The revision surgery rate was 8.1% mainly because of hypertrophy (6.5%). Conclusion: Among this cohort of patients, minced cartilage implantation demonstrated satisfying 2-year outcomes with increased patient-reported outcome measure scores from 3 to 24 months postoperatively. Regenerated tissue quality on MRI was comparable to that using other cartilage repair methods and showed no associations with patient characteristics or patient-reported outcome measures. Larger cohorts, longer postoperative intervals, and comparable trials are needed to further evaluate the role of this technique in treating cartilage defects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrthopaedic Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicOsteoarthritis Treatment and MechanismsFrench-language works237,207