Long-term Autograft Harvest Site Pain After Ankle and Hindfoot Arthrodesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pain following autograft harvest has been studied; however, published literature has typically focused on the iliac crest with follow-up limited to only a few years. It remains unknown if pain continues or improves over time. The purpose of this study was to evaluate long-term pain associated with autograft harvest to supplement hindfoot or ankle arthrodesis. METHODS: Subjects in the control arm of a previously conducted trial comparing autograft with a synthetic bone graft for hindfoot or ankle arthrodesis were invited back for a single visit at a minimum of 5 years following their initial surgery. Harvest site, fusion site, and weight-bearing pain were evaluated using a 100-point visual analog scale (VAS). Of the 130 invited subjects, 60 (46.1%) returned for assessment, 58 of whom completed pain assessments. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 9.0 years (range, 7.8-10.5), more than a third (36.6%) of subjects had some level of harvest site pain. Using VAS greater than 20 mm as a threshold of clinical significance, pain remained clinically significant in 5.2% of subjects. There was a significant correlation between harvest site pain and both weight-bearing and fusion site pain. There was not a significant correlation between harvest site pain and volume of graft harvested. CONCLUSION: Autograft harvest can result in chronic, clinically significant pain that can last up to 10 years. In the era of shared decision making, this information will help surgeons and patients quantify the risks of chronic pain after arthrodesis procedures that include a secondary operative incision for graft harvest. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective comparative study.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".