Comparable bone union progression after opening wedge high tibial osteotomy using allogenous bone chip or tri-calcium phosphate granule: a prospective randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare the progression rate of bone union and clinical outcomes of opening wedge high tibial osteotomy (OWHTO) using allogenous bone chip or tri-calcium phosphate (TCP) granule as bone graft materials. The hypothesis was that the bone union progression in OWHTOs using TCP granule grafts would be comparable to that of OWHTOs using allogenous bone chip grafts. METHODS: Between 2011 and 2013, 54 patients who had undergone OWHTO for genu varum and osteoarthritis were randomized to one of the two groups at five centres. TCP granule was used to fill the defect in 27 patients and lyophilized allogenous bone chip was used in the other 27 patients. The degree of bone union was classified on a five-point scale and evaluated using plain radiographs of the knee at 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months postoperatively. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, pain Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score and complications were also evaluated. RESULTS: The highest degree of bone union observed at 6 and 12 months postoperatively was grade 4, and the number of cases of union progression at each time-point was not significantly different between the two groups (p > 0.05). WOMAC and pain VAS scores also showed no differences between the two groups. No complications were observed during the 12-month period following OWHTO in either group. CONCLUSION: OWHTO using TCP granule bone substitute showed similar bone union rates and clinical outcomes compared to allogenous bone chip grafts. TCP granule can be used as bone substitutes instead of allogenous bone chip grafts in OWHTO. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".