Limited Evidence for Biological Adjuvants in Hindfoot Arthrodesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of biological adjuvants in patients managed with hindfoot arthrodesis. METHODS: A systematic review of the PubMed and Embase databases was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines with use of specific search terms and eligibility criteria. Assessment of evidence was threefold: level of evidence by criteria as described in The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, quality of evidence according to the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and conflicts of interest. Meta-analysis was performed with fixed-effects models for studies of low heterogeneity (I2 < 25%) and with random-effects models for studies of moderate to high heterogeneity (I2 ≥ 25%). RESULTS: A total of 1,579 hindfeet were recruited across all studies, and 1,527 hindfeet were recorded as having completed treatment and follow-up visits. The duration of follow-up ranged from 2.8 to 43 months. Twelve of the 17 included studies comprised patients with comorbidities associated with reduced healing capacity. Based on the random-effects model for nonunion rates for autograft versus allograft, the risk ratio was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.13 to 5.21; I2 = 56%; p = 0.83) in favor of lower nonunion rates for autograft. Based on the random-effects model for rhPDGF/β-TCP versus autograft, the risk ratio was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.74 to 1.10; I2 = 59%; p = 0.30) in favor of lower nonunion rates for rhPDGF/β-TCP. CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of data to support the meaningful use of biological adjuvants as compared with autograft/allograft for hindfoot arthrodesis. The meta-analysis favored the use of autograft when compared with allograft but favored rhPDGF/β-TCP when compared with autograft in the short term. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for 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 | 0.020 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".