Survey on the Need for Bone Graft in Foot and Ankle Fusion Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Generally, autologous bone graft is felt to be an important treatment adjunct in the presence of structural deformity, surface irregularities, defects (due to trauma, surgery, or degenerative changes), or underlying comorbidities that predispose the patient to healing challenges. This study assessed the prognostic and predictive factors used in the clinical decision making for bone graft supplementation in foot and ankle fusion surgery. METHODS: Utilizing standard survey research methodology, key-informant interviews, pretesting, and pilot testing; a survey was constructed. The survey consisted of a web-based 5-point Likert-type scale (never, seldom, sometimes, almost always, always) listing 14 clinical and 11 radiologic criteria that may influence the use of autologous bone grafting or other biologic augmentation in foot and ankle surgery. This survey was sent to Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Surgeons in North America and Canada. RESULTS: A total of 48 foot and ankle surgeons completed the blinded survey (73% response rate). More than 70% of responders felt bone graft was almost always (AA) or always (A) indicated in prior nonunion of the indicated joint (96%). Fewer than 50% of respondents felt poor soft tissue integrity (20%), prior foot and ankle infection (20%), and current foot and ankle infection (4%) needed bone graft. Radiologic factors marked as AA or A in over 70% of responders include radiographic evidence of nonunion (96%), avascular necrosis (87%), and others. Factors chosen as AA or A by fewer than 50% of surgeons include prior adjacent joint fusions (47%), intra-articular deformity (31%), and extra-articular deformity (13%). CONCLUSIONS: There was some uniformity of agreement on the number of both clinical and radiologic factors that prompt a surgeon to utilize autologous bone graft to try to avoid the complication of nonunion. Surgeons may wish to consider these factors when making a decision on the use of bone graft to supplement fusion.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".