Outcome of ankle arthrodesis and total ankle replacement for ankle arthrosis in terms of gait variability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Higher variability in gait parameters has been reported in patients’ with arthrosis of hip and knee joints, leading to dynamic instability and increased risk of falling. Higher variability and gait instability has also been noted to persist months after surgery. Ankle arthrosis is likely similar, but information regarding this is lacking. The purpose of the study was to evaluate gait variability following ankle arthrosis and its surgical treatments, ankle arthrodesis and total ankle replacement. Methods: Seventy participants, divided into controls, ankle arthrosis, ankle arthrodesis and total ankle replacement, performed gait assessment wearing 3-D inertial sensors through which gait parameters and the variability were compared among groups. Correlations between American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle score and Foot and Ankle Ability Measure score with the gait parameters and their variability were calculated. Results: All three case groups reported gait variability similar to that of the controls. On the contrary, significant differences (P < .01) were reported in several gait parameters when compared to the controls in all case groups. Furthermore, both clinical scores showed little to no correlation with gait variability and a good correlation was reported with gait parameters (P < .0001). Conclusions: The study did not find gait variability to be as reliable compared with gait parameters when assessing the outcome of ankle surgeries. Furthermore, among the gait parameters, walking speed showed a strong correlation with the patients’ functional status and is confirmed as an important parameter for ankle arthrosis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".