MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2130502485 · doi:10.2106/jbjs.l.01597

Intermediate-Term Results of Total Ankle Replacement and Ankle Arthrodesis

2014· article· en· W2130502485 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.
aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Bone and Joint Surgery · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueFoot and Ankle Surgery
Établissements canadiensQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreSt. Paul's HospitalHIV Legal NetworkUniversity of British ColumbiaIsland HealthSt. Michael's Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineAnkle replacementAnkleArthrodesisOrthopedic surgerySurgeryProsthesisProspective cohort studyArthroplastyOsteoarthritisPhysical therapy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: Surgical treatments for end-stage ankle arthritis include total ankle replacement and ankle arthrodesis. Although arthrodesis is a reliable procedure, ankle replacement is often preferred by patients. This prospective study evaluated intermediate-term outcomes of ankle replacement and arthrodesis in a large cohort at multiple centers, with variability in ankle arthritis type, prosthesis type, surgeon, and surgical technique. We hypothesized that patient-reported clinical outcomes would be similar for both procedures. Methods: Patients in the Canadian Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (COFAS) Prospective Ankle Reconstruction Database were treated with total ankle replacement (involving Agility, STAR, Mobility, or HINTEGRA prostheses) or ankle arthrodesis by six subspecialty-trained orthopaedic surgeons at four centers between 2001 and 2007. Data collection included demographics, comorbidities, and the Ankle Osteoarthritis Scale (AOS) and Short Form-36 (SF-36) scores. The preoperative and latest follow-up scores for patients with at least four years of follow-up were analyzed. Sensitivity analyses excluded ankles that had undergone revision. A linear mixed-effects regression model compared scores between the groups, adjusting for age, sex, side, smoking status, body mass index, inflammatory arthritis diagnosis, baseline score, and surgeon. Results: Of the 388 ankles (281 in the ankle replacement group and 107 in the arthrodesis group), 321 (83%; 232 ankle replacements and eighty-nine arthrodeses) were reviewed at a mean follow-up of 5.5 ± 1.2 years. Patients treated with arthrodesis were younger, more likely to be diabetic, less likely to have inflammatory arthritis, and more likely to be smokers. Seven (7%) of the arthrodeses and forty-eight (17%) of the ankle replacements underwent revision. The major complications rate was 7% for arthrodesis and 19% for ankle replacement. The AOS total, pain, and disability scores and SF-36 physical component summary score improved between the preoperative and final follow-up time points in both groups. The mean AOS total score improved from 53.4 points preoperatively to 33.6 points at the time of follow-up in the arthrodesis group and from 51.9 to 26.4 points in the ankle replacement group. Differences in AOS and SF-36 scores between the arthrodesis and ankle replacement groups at follow-up were minimal after adjustment for baseline characteristics and surgeon. Conclusions: Intermediate-term clinical outcomes of total ankle replacement and ankle arthrodesis were comparable in a diverse cohort in which treatment was tailored to patient presentation; rates of reoperation and major complications were higher after ankle replacement. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. Peer Review This article was reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and one Deputy Editor, and it underwent blinded review by two or more outside experts. It was also reviewed by an expert in methodology and statistics. The Deputy Editor reviewed each revision of the article, and it underwent a final review by the Editor-in-Chief prior to publication. Final corrections and clarifications occurred during one or more exchanges between the author(s) and copyeditors.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,401
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,439

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,022
Tête enseignante GPT0,241
Écart entre enseignants0,220 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle