No Superior Bone Union Outcomes with Allografts Compared to No Grafts and Autografts Following Medial Opening Wedge High Tibial Osteotomy: A Retrospective Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There has been long-standing debate about whether a medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy (MOWHTO) gap should be filled with autologous bone graft or any other filler to expedite the healing process. The main purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of MOWHTO with an opening gap ≥10 mm, utilizing autograft, allograft, or no graft at 1 year postoperatively. METHODS: A total of 68 patients were included in this retrospective study and divided into three treatment groups: Group A (no bone graft), Group B (autologous iliac crest graft), and Group C (allogenous tibia plateau graft). At postoperative 1-year follow-up, the area of callus filling in the most medial side of the knee was measured using anteroposterior radiographs, and a modified van Hemert scoring system was used to evaluate bone union outcomes in five mediolaterally divided zones. Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores and relevant complications were assessed. The correlations between the gap width and bone union scores were evaluated. RESULTS: Patients in the autograft group demonstrated better bone union progression (p = 0.031) and higher bone union scores (p < 0.01) compared to patients in the allograft or no graft groups. There were no significant differences in terms of postoperative WOMAC scores and incidence of complications among the three groups. No discernible linear relationships between the width of the opening gap and the bone union score were found. CONCLUSION: For MOWHTOs with an average gap opening width of 12.1 mm, autografts resulted in superior bone union outcomes compared to allografts and no graft at 1 year postoperatively. However, no bone graft achieved similar outcomes to allografts, suggesting that routine use of allografts should not be recommended.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".