MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972355114 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.g.00241

The Use of Calcium Phosphate Bone Cement in Fracture Treatment

2008· review· en· W1972355114 on OpenAlexaff
Sohail Bajammal, Michael Zlowodzki, Amy Lelwica, Paul Tornetta, Thomas A. Einhorn, Richard Buckley, Ross Leighton, Thomas A. Russell, Sune Larsson, Mohit Bhandari

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone fractures and treatments
Canadian institutionsHamilton General HospitalMcMaster UniversityQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDentistryRandomized controlled trialOsteoporosisCalcium phosphate cementCancellous bonePopulationCalciumSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Available options to fill fracture voids include autogenous bone, allograft bone, and synthetic bone materials. The objective of this meta-analysis was to determine whether the use of calcium phosphate bone cement improves clinical and radiographic outcomes and reduces fracture complications as compared with conventional treatment (with or without autogenous bone graft) for the treatment of fractures of the appendicular skeleton in adult patients. METHODS: Multiple databases, online registers of randomized controlled trials, and the proceedings of the meetings of major national orthopaedic associations were searched. Published and unpublished randomized controlled trials were included, and data on methodological quality, population, intervention, and outcomes were abstracted in duplicate. Data were pooled across studies, and relative risks for categorical outcomes and weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes, weighted according to study sample size, were calculated. Heterogeneity across studies was determined, and sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: We identified eleven published and three unpublished randomized controlled trials. Of the fourteen studies, six involved distal radial fractures, two involved femoral neck fractures, two involved intertrochanteric femoral fractures, two involved tibial plateau fractures, one involved calcaneal fractures, and one involved multiple types of metaphyseal fractures. All of the studies evaluated the use of calcium phosphate cement for the treatment of metaphyseal fractures occurring primarily through trabecular, cancellous bone. Autogenous bone graft was used in the control group in three studies, and no graft material was used in the remaining studies. Patients managed with calcium phosphate had a significantly lower prevalence of loss of fracture reduction in comparison with patients managed with autograft (relative risk reduction, 68%; 95% confidence interval, 29% to 86%) and had less pain at the fracture site in comparison with controls managed with no graft (relative risk reduction, 56%; 95% confidence interval, 14% to 77%). We were unable to compare pain at the bone-graft donor site between the studies because of methodological reasons. Three studies independently demonstrated improved functional outcomes when the use of calcium phosphate was compared with the use of no grafting material. CONCLUSIONS: The use of calcium phosphate bone cement for the treatment of fractures in adult patients is associated with a lower prevalence of pain at the fracture site in comparison with the rate in controls (patients managed with no graft material). Loss of fracture reduction is also decreased in comparison with that in patients managed with autogenous bone graft.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.028
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations149
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Bone and Joint SurgerySame topicBone fractures and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207