Serial Assessment of Weight‐Bearing Lower Extremity Alignment Radiographs After Open‐Wedge High Tibial Osteotomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to perform a serial assessment of the radiologic parameters of the mechanical axis (MA) and the weight-bearing line (WBL) using a weight-bearing anteroposterior (AP) long-standing view of the lower extremity to determine whether the postoperative MA and WBL change with time. METHODS: A total of 90 consecutive lower limbs were examined retrospectively from a weight-bearing AP long-standing view of the lower extremity obtained from 120 patients who underwent open-wedge high tibial osteotomy (OWHTO). A total of 30 patients were excluded because of (1) complications (7 patients) such as bone graft collapse or broken screws, malunion, or nonunion arising after surgery and (2) no acquisition of a regular series of weight-bearing AP long-standing views of the lower extremity (23 patients). The AP long-standing view of the lower extremity was taken, and weight-bearing AP long-standing views of the lower extremity at 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively were used for assessment of serial change. The Picture Archiving Communication System (Marotech, Inc, St-Augustin-de-Desmaures, Quebec, Canada) was used for radiologic measurements of the WBL ratio and MA. Serial changes were compared between 1 month, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively. RESULTS: The WBL ratio progressively shifted medially, with significant changes at all time points until 1 year postoperatively (1 month to 6 months, P = .04; 6 months to 1 year, P = .04; 1 year to 2 years, P = .22). Even though the MA angle showed a similar decreasing trend, it showed no statistical difference (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that after OWHTO, the WBL shifts progressively medially until 1 year postoperatively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, diagnostic study.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".