MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1814915316

Rheumatoid forefoot deformity: a comparison study of 2 functional methods of reconstruction.

2003· article· en· W1814915316 on OpenAlexaff
David Mulcahy, T. Daniels, Johnny Tak-Choy Lau, Eleanor Boyle, Earl R. Bogoch

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFoot and Ankle Surgery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineForefootDeformityArthrodesisFoot (prosody)SurgeryWOMACRadiographyGaitRheumatoid arthritisOsteoarthritisPhysical therapyComplicationInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To compare the functional, radiographic, and pedobarographic results of different reconstructive methods for severe rheumatoid forefoot deformities. METHODS: A total of 138 feet in 79 patients with RA forefoot reconstructions between 1978 and 1997 were reviewed through a detailed questionnaire, clinical examination, standardized radiographs, and pedobarographic analysis. Five subgroups based on procedure to the 1st ray were identified, then divided into 2 functional categories: Group 1: stable 1st ray by means of arthrodesis or no surgery; and Group 2: a resection procedure to 1st metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients (106 feet) attended clinical review; 18 returned the questionnaire. There were 65 women and 14 men, with a mean age of 59 years (range 24-80): with 52 feet in Group 1 and 86 feet in Group 2. Mean age at surgery for both groups was 52 years (range 23-79). Mean age at the time of review was 55 years (Group 1) and 60.5 years (Group 2). Length of followup was significantly different: Group 1 averaged 36 months; Group 2, 102 months (p < 0.001). At review, no significant difference was noted in SF-36, comorbidities, WOMAC, or Foot Function Index. The disability score as defined by the American Rheumatological Society was significantly different: Group 1, 2.1 +/- 0.5; and Group 2, 2.4 +/- 0.6 (p = 0.006). Group 1 did significantly better in terms of walking distance, satisfaction with postoperative appearance of foot, relief of plantar pain, less plantar calluses, and higher AOFAS HMIP and LMIP scores. Postoperative complications occurred in 16 feet (11%); 15 feet required reoperation (10.6%). Major resection of the 1st MTP joint was associated with a significant increase in the 1st and 2nd intermetatarsal angle on radiographic review. The pattern of pressure distribution on the plantar aspect was similar regardless of the surgical procedure. The maximum contact area, maximum peak pressure, and maximum pressure time integral were located under the region of the 1st metatarsal, with a progressive decrease in values under the more lateral rays and under the lesser toes. Significantly higher pressures were seen under the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd metatarsal regions in Group 2 (1st MTP joint resection). Toe function was absent or minimal in the majority of Group 2. CONCLUSION: Forefoot arthroplasty by means of a resection or stabilization provides significant pain relief. Maintenance of a stable 1st MTP joint and resection of the lesser metatarsal heads with K-wire stabilization will result in a more cosmetic forefoot, more even distribution of forefoot pressures, and more satisfied patients.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.411
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations63
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicFoot and Ankle SurgeryFrench-language works237,207