MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404793561 · doi:10.5435/jaaos-d-24-00500

Nonunion in Foot and Ankle Arthrodesis Surgery: Review of Risk Factors, Identification of High-risk Patients, and a Guide to Perioperative Testing and Optimization

2024· article· en· W4404793561 on OpenAlexaff
Helena Greene, Andrew Dodd, Ian L. D. Le

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNonunionPerioperativeArthrodesisAnkleSurgeryIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Foot and ankle arthrodesis surgery is often associated with high rates of nonunion ranging from 8% to 40%. This complication can result in individual patient burden and system burden in the management of these complex patients. Biologic factors contribute greatly to the development of a nonunion, including patient-related modifiable risk factors, metabolic and endocrine factors, systemic disease, previous surgeries, medications, weight loss treatments, and posttraumatic and postsurgical factors. Despite the high nonunion rate, there is a lack of high-level evidence in the identification of high-risk patients, strategies to minimize nonunion, and the management of patients with nonunion. An accepted standard of practice has not been established. This review aims to provide foot and ankle surgeons with (1) a comprehensive review of risk factors for nonunion, (2) a tool to identify high-risk patients using a preoperative patient questionnaire, (3) a clinical practice guide to preoperative and intraoperative testing that aims to improve preoperative counselling and patient optimization, and (4) perioperative strategies to minimize nonunion risk. With the above framework, our goal is to minimize nonunion risk in patients undergoing foot and ankle arthrodesis surgery to improve patient care and outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.768

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic SurgeonsSame topicFoot and Ankle SurgeryFrench-language works237,207