Total Knee Arthroplasty After High Tibial Osteotomy: No Differences Between Medial and Lateral Osteotomy Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High tibial osteotomy (HTO) has long been accepted as an effective treatment for unicompartmental osteoarthritis of the knee in young, active adults. For varus knees, the two most commonly performed valgus-producing HTOs are the lateral closing wedge and the medial opening wedge. Regardless of technique, some HTOs fail and are converted to TKA. To our knowledge, no studies have directly compared TKAs done after lateral closing-wedge osteotomies to those done after medial opening-wedge osteotomies. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We compared pain- and function-related outcomes and survivorship of TKAs in patients who previously underwent medial opening-wedge and lateral closing-wedge HTOs. METHODS: We reviewed our institutional database to identify all patients having undergone a HTO with subsequent conversion to TKA and identified 188 lateral closing-wedge HTOs and 77 medial opening-wedge HTOs. Mean followup was 88 months (range, 3-264 months) for the lateral closing-wedge HTO cohort and 59 months (range, 3-180 months) for the medial opening-wedge cohort. SF-12, WOMAC, and Knee Society Scores, as well as survivorship at 5 years, were compared between the two groups. Statistical analysis was completed using the independent-samples t-test. RESULTS: No differences were found between groups in postoperative SF-12 scores (p = 0.77 for the mental component summary score and p = 0.21 for the physical component summary score), WOMAC scores (p = 0.67), or Knee Society Scores (p = 0.80). No difference was found in survivorship between groups at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest there is no difference in functional outcomes or survivorship of TKA in patients having previously undergone medial opening-wedge and lateral closing-wedge HTOs.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".