MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411302147 · doi:10.1016/j.jor.2025.06.005

Bioabsorbable implants are a viable alternative to traditional metallic implants in orthopaedic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· review· en· W4411302147 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Orthopaedics · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKnee injuries and reconstruction techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisDentistrySystematic reviewOrthopedic surgeryMEDLINEMedical physicsSurgeryOrthodonticsPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: Introduction This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aims to compare clinical outcomes and complication profiles of bioabsorbable versus metallic implants in orthopaedic surgery. Methods Four databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL) were searched from inception to April 8, 2025, for RCTs comparing bioabsorbable and metal implants in orthopaedic procedures. Data were extracted on demographics, implant type, complications, and outcomes. Meta-analyses using random-effects models were performed for pooled comparisons, and heterogeneity was quantified using the I 2 statistic. Risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results Twenty-seven RCTs involving 1437 patients (738 bioabsorbable, 699 metallic) were included. Overall complication rates were similar between groups (RR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.62–1.77, I 2 =49.8%, p=0.85). Bioabsorbable implants had a 15.5% complication rate compared to 13.3% for metallic implants. Newer materials showed lower complication rates of 2.5% for PLLA-HA and 5% for magnesium compared to 16.5% for other compounds. There were no foreign body reactions in the studies using newer materials. There was a statistically significant decrease in surgical site infections in the bioabsorbable group (RR: 0.36, 95% CI: 0.17, 0.79, I 2 =0%, p=0.02). No significant differences were found regarding hardware failure, pain and functional deficiency, and healing rates. Subgroup analysis of ankle procedures (n=5) showed a higher complication rate in the bioabsorbable group (RR: 3.75, 95% CI: 1.02, 13.8, I 2 =25%, p=0.05), influenced by one study reporting a 33.7% foreign body reaction rate. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, foot, and upper limb subgroups showed comparable outcomes. Conclusion Bioabsorbable implants provide comparable complication rates and clinical outcomes to metallic implants across orthopaedic subspecialties. Outcomes may vary by anatomical site and implant generation, with newer bioabsorbable materials demonstrating promising safety profiles. Further long-term studies are warranted to evaluate their performance in high-stress applications and guide clinical decision-making. Level of Evidence Level I – Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.635
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.008
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.254 · 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