Midfoot and hindfoot arthrodeses in diabetic Charcot arthropathy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To review the clinical outcome of arthrodesis of the foot in patients with diabetic Charcot arthropathy and to review the pathophysiology, clinical and radiographic features of Charcot arthropathy. DESIGN: A retrospective review and clinical follow-up of a series of patients. SETTING: St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, a tertiary care teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Ten diabetic patients treated between 1996 and 1998 who required an arthrodesis of the midfoot or hindfoot secondary to deformity of diabetic neuropathic joints. INTERVENTIONS: Three midfoot (Lisfranc) and 7 hindfoot arthrodeses with autogenous iliac-crest bone grafting and internal fixation. OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient satisfaction, maintenance of the correction of the deformity and avoidance of amputation. Western Ontario/McMaster University score and midfoot/hindfoot American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society foot ratios. Clinical examination including E-MED pedographic examination. Correction and evidence of bony or fibrous union assessed radiologically. RESULTS: The postoperative correction was maintained, no further skin ulceration occurred and amputation was avoided in 9 of 10 patients. Because this is a salvage procedure and there was often significant concomitant illness, the results of clinical rating systems were poor. Five of 9 patients had clinical and radiographic evidence of a solid bony arthrodesis; 4 had a stable fibrous union. CONCLUSIONS: With careful surgical technique, a reasonable number of feet can be salvaged by an arthrodesis of a diabetic neuropathic joint when nonoperative measures fail. Patient selection is important because there is a significant complication rate.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".