MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985976204 · doi:10.1177/0363546503258907

Opening Wedge High Tibial Osteotomy for Symptomatic Hyperextension-Varus Thrust

2004· article· en· W1985976204 on OpenAlexaff
Douglas D.R. Naudie, Annunziato Amendola, Peter J. Fowler

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Sports Medicine · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTotal Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes
Canadian institutionsFowler Kennedy Sport Medicine ClinicLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHigh tibial osteotomyMedicineRadiographyOsteoarthritisValgusWedge (geometry)OrthodonticsSurgeryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the functional outcome of opening wedge high tibial osteotomy (HTO) in a young, active group of patients with instability rather than osteoarthritis. METHODS: The results of 17 opening wedge HTOs in 16 patients with a symptomatic hyperextension-varus thrust were evaluated. Functional results were evaluated according to the activity scoring system of Tegner and Lysholm and using a 5-point visual analogue scale to assess change in knee stability and satisfaction. Radiographs were analyzed to determine changes in femorotibial and mechanical axis alignment, tibial slope, and patellar height. RESULTS: Patients were followed for a mean of 56 months. All patients had an increase in their activity score postoperatively. Nine patients rated their symptoms as significantly better and seven as somewhat better. All but one were satisfied with the surgery. Femorotibial axis alignment was changed to a mean of 6 degrees valgus, mechanical axis alignment was corrected to a mean of 46% toward the lateral compartment, posterior tibial slope was increased a mean of 8 degrees, and the ratio of patellar height was decreased a mean of 0.17. CONCLUSION: Opening wedge HTO can produce good functional and radiographic results in selected patients with a symptomatic thrust.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.572

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations172
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesFrench-language works237,207