Strut Onlay Allograft in Revision Arthroplasty: Osseous Union and Clinical Outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the clinical outcome and the osseous union of strut onlay allografts (SOAs) used as adjunct in revision total joint arthroplasty (TJA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients that had previously undergone SOA augmentation were considered for inclusion. Patients were invited to provide information for the following: Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), EuroQol five dimension score (EQ-5D) and Parker mobility score. Osseous union rates between SOA and the host bone were determined by radiograph with the Emerson classification system. Bone mineral density was measured via quantitative computed tomography. RESULTS: Seventeen patients were identified, at a mean follow-up of 2.8 years. The median total WOMAC score was 22 [interquartile range (IQR)=21]. The median EQ-5D score was 0.887 (IQR=0.350) (time trade-off). The Parker Mobility Score was 8.0 (IQR=3.5). Emerson stages of radiographic graft to host union were 'rounding off' in one case, 'partial bridging' in three and 'complete bridging' in 13. Quantitative computed tomography showed an average bone mineral density of approximately 1,300 mg/cm3. CONCLUSION: From our findings, it is concluded that SOAs used in revision total joint arthroplasty provide promising results and are recommended for broader clinical use. A complete osseous union between host and graft bone was observed in the majority of cases.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".