Opening Wedge High Tibial Osteotomy for Symptomatic Hyperextension-Varus Thrust
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".