MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2412515106

Maxillary bone grafts for the repair of traumatic orbital floor defects.

2010· article· en· W2412515106 on OpenAlexaff
Sharon Morong, Laura M. Snell, Saadia Nishtar, James Mahoney, Mohammed M. Elahi

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFacial Trauma and Fracture Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGynecologyMedicineSurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To present maxillary bone (MB) grafts as a viable option for repair of traumatic orbital floor (TOF) defects by comparing their use to titanium mesh (TM) looking at TOF defect size, operative time, and complication rate. METHODS: The senior author's surgical technique is described. Patients undergoing TOF repair using MB versus TM were assessed retrospectively, focusing on TOF defect size, operative time, and follow-up results. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-six patients with 212 TOF defects presented to a single surgeon between 2004 and 2008. One hundred sixty-five patients (178 TOF defects) were repaired with MB and 31 patients (34 TOF defects) with TM. The MB and TM groups were similar with respect to age, gender, time to repair, and other associated facial fractures. TOF defect size was similar between the two groups (MB: mean 1.7 cm2, range 0.32-2.82 cm2; TM: mean 1.9 cm2, range 0.5-2.83 cm2). Follow-up was slightly longer in the TM group; however, many patients were lost to follow-up. There were no donor-site complications in the MB group and no significant difference in postoperative complications in the MB group versus the TM group (11% vs 24%). The operative time in patients with TOF defects was slightly longer in the MB group versus the TM group (35 min vs 27 minutes, p = .02). CONCLUSIONS: This series is the largest published series to date. MB was used successfully to repair TOF defects, with no increased risk of complications and only a slightly longer operative time compared to TM. MB offers an autogenous bone graft source that is technically easy to harvest and in the same surgical field, obviating many of the complications associated with alloplastic materials and traditional bone graft choices. MB grafts should be considered a viable option when choosing material to repair TOF defects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicFacial Trauma and Fracture ManagementFrench-language works237,207