Research on the Influence of the Allogeneic Bone Graft in Postoperative Recovery After MOWHTO: A Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rui Zhong,* Gang Yu,* Yingming Wang,* Chao Fang, Shuai Lu, Zhilin Liu, Jingyu Gao, Chengyuan Yan, Qichun Zhao Department of Sports Medicine, The Affiliated Provincial Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, 230001, People’s Republic of China*These authors contributed equally to this workCorrespondence: Qichun Zhao, Department of Sports Medicine, The Affiliated Provincial Hospital of Anhui Medical University, No. 17 Lujiang Road, Luyang District, Hefei, 230001, People’s Republic of China, Tel/Fax +86 13965050622, Email qichzhao@163.comPurpose: To compare the effects of an allogeneic bone graft and a non-filled bone graft on the rate of osteotomy gap union in medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy (MOWHTO) with an opening width less than 10 mm.Methods: A total of 65 patients undergoing MOWHTO between January 2018 and December 2020 were enrolled in this retrospective study. The patients were divided into two groups: the allograft group (MOWHTO with allogeneic bone grafting, 30 patients) and the non-filling group (MOWHTO without bone void fillers, 35 patients). The clinical outcomes, including the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis index (WOMAC), Lysholm score, and post-operative complications, were compared. The radiographic evaluation included changes in hip–knee–ankle angle (HKA), medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA), femorotibial angle (FTA), and weight-bearing line ratio (WBLR) at pre-operation, at two-day post-operation, and the last follow-up. Radiographs were obtained at three, six and twelve months post-surgery, and at the time of the last follow-up to assess the fill area of the osteotomy gap. The union rate of the osteotomy gap was calculated and compared, and risk factors that may affect the rate of osteotomy gap union were also discussed.Results: The rate of osteotomy gap union at 3 and 6 months after the operation in the allograft group was significantly higher compared with the non-filling group (all P< 0.05), while no significant difference was found after the 1-year post-operative and at the last follow-up. Also, the WOMAC and Lysholm scores of the allograft group were significantly higher than those of the non-filling group (all P< 0.05), and there was no significant difference between the two groups at the last follow-up.Conclusion: Filling the gaps with the allograft bones may accelerate the union of osteotomy gap, improve clinical outcomes, and have important implications for patient rehabilitation in the early post-operative course. Bone grafting did not affect the final rate of osteotomy gap union and the clinical score of patients.Keywords: MOWHTO, osteotomy gap, bone union, allogenic bone graft
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".