Factors Associated With Outcome After Subtalar Arthrodesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate radiographic and functional outcomes after subtalar arthrodesis and to identify patient factors associated with poor outcome. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Two academic hospitals. PATIENTS: Eighty-eight patients with primary or secondary osteoarthritis treated between 1995 and 2002. INTERVENTION: Primary subtalar arthrodesis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Radiographic outcome was assessed by determining union rates. Functional outcome was assessed through self-administered questionnaires (Short Form-36, Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment, and the AAOS Foot and Ankle Instrument). RESULTS: After adjusting for age and sex smokers were 3.8 times more likely to go on to nonunion than nonsmokers (P < 0.05). As patients aged, there was a higher likelihood of nonunion if they also smoked (P < 0.05). Of patients undergoing subtalar bone block distraction arthrodesis 95% went on to union compared with 65% of patients treated with an in situ subtalar arthrodesis without bone graft (P < 0.05). There was a trend for higher rates of union if a bone graft was used among patients treated with an in situ subtalar arthrodesis. Diabetic patients were 18.7 times more likely to have a malunion (P < 0.05). As a group, patients who have undergone subtalar arthrodesis can expect significantly worse functional outcomes compared with the Canadian and American normative populations. The poorest functional outcomes were observed among patients with diabetes. A trend for poorer outcome in bodily pain and general health (Short Form-36) was seen in workers' compensation patients. CONCLUSIONS: Certain patient variables are associated with poorer outcomes after subtalar fusion. The results of this study will enable surgeons to provide better information to patients in preoperative discussions with respect to patient expectations, outcomes, and the success of surgery.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".