Comparison of Autogenous Bone Graft and Endothermic Calcium Phosphate Cement for Defect Augmentation in Tibial Plateau Fractures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bone graft augmentation is often selected to treat defects associated with unstable tibial plateau fractures. This prospective, randomized, multicenter study was undertaken to determine the efficacy of bioresorbable calcium phosphate cement compared with standard autogenous iliac bone graft in the treatment of these osseous defects. METHODS: One hundred and twenty acute, closed, unstable tibial plateau fractures (Schatzker types I through VI) in 119 adult patients were prospectively enrolled in twelve study sites in North America between 1999 and 2002. Randomization for the type of grafting of the subarticular defect was done at the time of surgery, with use of a 2:1 ratio, to treatment with calcium phosphate cement (eighty-two fractures) or autogenous iliac bone graft (thirty-eight fractures). After open reduction, standard plate-and-screw or screw-only fixation was used and then either the cement or the bone graft was placed in the defect cavity for subarticular support. Follow-up included standard radiographs, evaluated by multiple reviewers to avoid bias, and knee range-of-motion assessment at six months to one year or later. RESULTS: The age, weight, height, and sex of the patients and the fracture patterns were comparable in the two groups, as were union rates and time to union. There was a significantly (p = 0.009) higher rate of articular subsidence during the three to twelve-month follow-up period in the bone graft group. CONCLUSIONS: The bioresorbable calcium phosphate cement used in this study appears to be a better choice, at least in terms of the prevention of subsidence, than autogenous iliac bone graft for the treatment of subarticular defects associated with unstable tibial plateau fractures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions to 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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".