The Effects of Medialization and Anteromedialization of the Tibial Tubercle on Patellofemoral Mechanics and Kinematics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medialization and anteromedialization of the tibial tubercle are used to correct patellar subluxation in adults. PURPOSE: To compare the effects of the 2 osteotomies on patellofemoral joint contact pressures and kinematics. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: Tibial tubercle osteotomies were performed on 10 cadaveric human knees. The knees were tested between 0 degrees and 90 degrees of flexion while dynamic patellofemoral joint contact pressure and kinematic data were simultaneously obtained. Four conditions were tested: normal knee alignment, simulated increased Q angle, postmedialization of the tibial tubercle, and postanteromedialization of the tubercle. RESULTS: An increased Q angle laterally translated the patella, shifted force to the lateral facet, and increased patella contact pressures. Both medialization and anteromedialization partially corrected the abnormal contact pressures. Medialization partially corrected the shift of force to the lateral facet induced by an increased Q angle, whereas the anteromedialization could not. Both medialization and anteromedialization corrected the patella maltracking. CONCLUSION: Medialization and anteromedialization are equivalent in their ability to correct abnormal patellar mechanics and kinematics.
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".