Better clinical results after closed‐ compared to open‐wedge high tibial osteotomy in patients with medial knee osteoarthritis and varus leg alignment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Studies comparing mid- or long-term outcomes of open- and closed-wedge high tibial osteotomy are limited. Here, the midterm survival rate and clinical and radiographic outcomes were compared for these two techniques. The study hypothesis, based on short-term follow-up, was that after midterm follow-up, the two techniques would not differ. METHODS: A prospective follow-up study was conducted for a previously reported randomized controlled trial of an original 50 patients (25 open-wedge osteotomy and 25 closed-wedge osteotomy) with medial knee osteoarthritis and a varus leg alignment. We analyzed patients without knee arthroplasty (mean age 48.7 years, SD 8.0) for clinical and radiographic follow-up. RESULTS: Five patients in each group had undergone conversion to a total knee arthroplasty or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, leaving 19 patients for analysis in each group. At 7.9 years of follow-up (range 7-9 years), survival did not differ significantly between groups (open-wedge group 81.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 75.2-100], closed-wedge group 82.0% [95% CI 66.7-100]). At final follow-up, total Dutch Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis (WOMAC), Knee Society Score, and visual analog scale (VAS) pain did not differ between groups. However, the results were significantly better in the closed-wedge group for VAS satisfaction and WOMAC pain and stiffness compared to the open-wedge group. Radiographic evaluation did not differ between groups for any outcome at final follow-up. CONCLUSION: After a mean follow-up of 7.9 years, patients undergoing a closed-wedge osteotomy had favorable clinical results compared to those who underwent an open-wedge osteotomy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".