MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400378119 · doi:10.55095/achot2024/020

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Outcomes of Reconstruction with Vascularised vs Non-Vascularised Bone Graft after Surgical Resection of Primary Malignant and Non-Malignant Bone Tumors

2024· review· en· W4400378119 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ramanlal P. Patel, Greg Mcconaghie, M. M. Khan, W. Gibson, Rohit Singh, Robin Banerjee

Bibliographic record

VenueActa chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae Cechoslovaca · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineResectionBone graftingMeta-analysisBone tumoursSurgerySurgical resectionPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: Vascularised bone grafting (VBG) and non-vascularised bone grafting (NVBG) are crucial biological reconstructive procedures extensively employed in the management of bone tumours. The principal aim of this study is to conduct a comparative analysis of the post-resection outcomes associated with the utilisation of vascularised and non-vascularised bone grafts. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A comprehensive and systematic literature review spanning the years 2013 to 2023 was meticulously executed, utilising prominent online databases including PubMed/Medline, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library. Inclusion criteria were restricted to comparative articles that specifically addressed outcomes pertaining to defect restoration following bone tumour resection via vascularised and non-vascularised bone grafting techniques. The quality of research methodologies was assessed using the Oxford Quality Scoring System for randomised trials and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for non-randomised comparative studies. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS version 24. Key outcome measures encompassed the Musculoskeletal Tumour Society Score (MSTS), bone union duration, and the incidence of post-operative complications. RESULTS: This analysis incorporated four clinical publications, enrolling a total of 178 participants (comprising 92 males and 86 females), with 90 patients subjected to VBG and 88 to NVBG procedures. The primary endpoints of interest encompassed MSTS scores and bone union durations. Although no statistically significant distinction was observed in the complication rates between the two cohorts, it is noteworthy that VBG exhibited a markedly superior bone union rate (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic evaluation revealed that VBG facilitates expedited bone union, thereby contributing to accelerated patient recovery. Notably, complication rates and functional outcomes were comparable between the VBG and NVBG groups. Moreover, the correlation between bone union duration and functional scores following VBG and NVBG merits further investigation. KEY WORDS: reconstruction techniques, vascularised bone grafting, non-vascularised bone grafting, bone tumor, resection.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.033
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae CechoslovacaSame topicSarcoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207