Variation in Arthroscopic Treatment of Discoid Lateral Meniscus and Postoperative Restrictions in Children: Results of a Multicenter Meniscus Study Group Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Because of congenital abnormal collagenous structures and peripheral attachments, discoid lateral meniscus (DLM) is often associated with tears and instability and a risk of premature compartmental articular degeneration. Typically, surgery is indicated for symptomatic patients. Several surgical techniques have been described in the literature, but no studies have examined surgeon variation. Purpose: To determine the intersurgeon agreement for DLM surgical planning and postoperative restriction after arthroscopic assessment. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: Sixteen orthopaedic surgeons from an international pediatric meniscus study group were shown 4 different videos of a DLM arthroscopic procedure. Each surgeon completed a survey for each arthroscopic video. The survey included questions about operative planning, such as peripheral rim preservation, repair and stabilization technique, and postoperative restrictions. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the variables collected. Results: One of the 4 arthroscopic videos showed a complete discoid meniscus with no instability or tearing. For this specific meniscus, consensus was generally good, with 87.5% to 93.8% agreement for all the categories, except peripheral rim preservation, with 31.3% agreement. However, for the other 3 videos with tears and/or instability, consensus was generally low. Depending on the categories, the highest percentage of intersurgeon agreement varied between 25.0% and 62.5%, while being >50% only 2 of 27 times. Conclusion: Agreement regarding the surgical technique and postoperative rehabilitation among surgeons with experience in the treatment of DLM is poor in the event of tears and instability, which represent the greatest technical challenges with the most significant functional effect. Given the relative rarity of the condition and the implications on a child's long-term joint health, prospective, comparative multicenter studies regarding treatment algorithms and outcomes are warranted.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".