Can Porous Tantalum Be Used to Achieve Ankle and Subtalar Arthrodesis?: A Pilot Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: A structural graft often is needed to fill gaps during reconstructive procedures of the ankle and hindfoot. Autograft, the current gold standard, is limited in availability and configuration and is associated with donor-site morbidity in as much as 48%, whereas the alternative allograft carries risks of disease transmission and collapse. Trabecular metal (tantalum), with a healing rate similar to that of autograft, high stability, and no donor-site morbidity, has been used in surgery of the hip, knee, and spine. However, its use has not been documented in foot and ankle surgery. We retrospectively reviewed nine patients with complex foot and ankle arthrodeses using a tantalum spacer. Minimum followup was 1.9 years (average, 2 years; range, 1.9-2.4 years). Bone ingrowth into the tantalum was analyzed with micro-CT in three of the nine patients. All arthrodeses were fused clinically and radiographically at the 1- and 2 year followups and no complications occurred. The American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society score increased from 32 to 74. The micro-CT showed bony trabeculae growing onto the tantalum. Our data suggest tantalum may be used as a structural graft option for ankle and subtalar arthrodesis. All nine of our patients achieved fusion and had no complications. Using tantalum obviated the need for harvesting of the iliac spine. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it