A case series of lateral opening wedge high tibial osteotomy for valgus malalignment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Lateral opening wedge high tibial osteotomy is a rarely employed surgical technique used for the treatment of lateral knee pain and degeneration in the setting of genu valgum. There exists little evidence of the suitability of this procedure for patients requiring osteotomies with a small correction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A case series of 23 patients (24 knees) undergoing lateral opening wedge high tibial osteotomy with a minimum follow-up of 2 years was performed between 2002 and 2008. A surgical technique avoiding the need for fibular osteotomy is described. Adverse events, patient-reported outcomes and radiographic measures of alignment were assessed at baseline, at 6 months postoperatively, and at time of final follow-up. A subgroup of 12 patients also underwent 3D gait analysis at the same time points. RESULTS: The mean follow-up was 52 months (±20.4). Statistically and clinically significant improvements were identified in the lower extremity functional scale [mean change (95%CI) = 10 (2.4, 17.6)], and in the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score [mean change (95%CI) = 10.9 (0.5, 21.4)]. Mechanical axis changed from 2.4 ± 2.4° valgus to 0 ± 2.6° varus (p<0.001), anatomical axis from 6.9 ± 2.8° to 4.7 ± 2.5° valgus (p < 0.001), with weight-bearing line offset changing from 60.2 ± 11.4% to 49.5 ± 12.4% (p < 0.001). Change in lateral tibial slope, from 6.5 ± 2.2° to 7.5 ± 2.3°, was very small and not statistically significant (n.s.). The peak knee adduction moment during gait significantly increased [mean change (95%CI) = 0.72%BW*Ht (0.42, 1.02), suggesting a medial shift in dynamic knee joint load. Two patients underwent total knee arthroplasty during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Lateral opening wedge high tibial osteotomy is a viable surgical option for patients with lateral knee pain and valgus malalignment requiring small degrees of correction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".