An Observational Cohort Study of Wharton’s Jelly Tissue Allografts for Posterior Tibial Tendon Degeneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Posterior tibial tendon dysfunction (PTTD) is a progressive degenerative tendinopathy often unresponsive to conservative care, necessitating surgical interventions with significant postoperative risks. Wharton’s jelly (WJ) tissue allograft from the human umbilical cord, with its collagen-rich matrix homologous to tendon tissue, presents a potential alternative intervention. This study aims to report preliminary findings on the safety and efficacy of WJ allografts for the supplementation of degenerated tissue in patients with PTTD. Material and Methods: Twenty-six patients from the observational repository were identified with PTTD (Stages II-IV) and failed at least three months of conservative care. Patients received one or two ultrasound-guided percutaneous applications of the WJ allograft. Outcomes were tracked using the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), the Western Ontario and McMaster University Arthritis Index (WOMAC), and the Quality-of-Life Scale (QOLS) at the initial, 30, 90, and 120-day follow-ups. Results: The cohort was 62% male (n = 16) and 38% female (n = 10), with a mean age predominantly in the 70–89 range. From the initial to final visit (90 days for single applications, 120 days for double applications), the single-application group (n = 22) showed a 48.32% improvement in NPRS and a 22.73% improvement in total WOMAC. The double-application group (n = 8) showed a 50% improvement in NPRS and a 27.86% improvement in total WOMAC. A statistically significant improvement in NPRS was observed in the single-application group (p = 0.042). No adverse events were reported. Discussion: This study provides preliminary evidence that WJ tissue allografts may be a safe and effective minimally invasive application for degeneration of the PTT, which is associated with improvements in pain, function, and quality of life. Key limitations include a lack of a control group and a small cohort size. Conclusions: The positive findings of this study warrant further research through randomized controlled trials to confirm efficacy, establish optimal dosage, and compare WJ to other conservative interventions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".