Evidence-Based Classification of Complications in Total Ankle Arthroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) has become a viable treatment for end-stage ankle arthrosis. Current literature on survival rates and complications of TAA consist of mostly retrospective Level IV papers that do not provide a system for classifying complications. The aim of the current review is to provide a summary of TAA implant survival and complication rates from current literature on outcomes of second or third generation ankle prostheses and subsequently propose a classification system. METHODS: A literature review was used to identify articles reporting complications and failures of TAA ankle prostheses. Inclusion criteria included studies with at least 25 cases and a minimum of 24 months followup. RESULTS: Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria. The percentage of failed TAA reported for the short- and intermediate-term followup in this review ranged from 1.3 to 32.3 % with an overall mean of 12.4 % failure at 64 months. Nine main complications of TAA were identified. CONCLUSION: Deep infection, aseptic loosening and implant failure should be considered ;;high-grade'' complications since they will result in failure greater than 50% of the time. Technical error, subsidence and postoperative bone fracture should be considered "medium-grade'', while intra-op bone fractures and wound healing problems should be considered "low-grade''. We believe this review provides the groundwork for uniform complication reporting in TAA and allows the development of a classification system that will provide prognostic information that may serve to guide postoperative care of patients receiving TAA.
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 | 0.019 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.031 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".