Arthroscopic Debridement of the Talonavicular Joint Using Dorsomedial and Dorsolateral Portals: A Cadaveric Study of Safety and Access
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the safety and access talonavicular arthroscopy provides for the purpose of arthrodesis through dorsomedial and dorsolateral portals in a cadaveric model. METHODS: The talonavicular joints of 8 cadaveric specimens were arthroscopically debrided, by use of a dorsomedial instrumentation portal and a dorsolateral visualization portal. The specimens were dissected with the arthroscopic equipment left in place, the distances from the edge of the instrument to the neurovascular structures were measured, and the specimens were then examined for signs of damage. Finally, the naviculars and tali were removed, and the percentage of debrided subchondral bone was determined by use of ImageJ software (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD). RESULTS: Examination of the talonavicular joint showed mean subchondral debridement of 98.6% of the navicular and 83.2% of the talus. The dorsomedial portal had a median distance of 4.5 mm, 10.5 mm, and 7 mm to the superficial peroneal nerve, the medial terminal branch of the deep peroneal nerve, and the dorsalis pedis, respectively. The dorsolateral portal had a median distance of 1 mm to the lateral branch of the deep peroneal nerve, with the nerve found resting on the arthroscope in 2 specimens. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic debridement of the talonavicular joint is possible. Because of the risk of damage to the lateral terminal branch of the deep peroneal nerve, an alternative to the dorsolateral portal should be considered. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study provides evidence that arthroscopic assisted talonavicular arthrodesis is possible but that further research is needed to ensure the safety of the technique.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".