Clinical Outcomes and Static and Dynamic Assessment of Foot Posture After Lateral Column Lengthening Procedure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lateral column lengthening (LCL) has been shown to radiographically restore the medial longitudinal arch. However, the impact of LCL on foot function during gait has not been reported using validated clinical outcomes and gait analysis. METHODS: Thirteen patients with a stage II flatfoot who had undergone unilateral LCL surgery and 13 matched control subjects completed self-reported pain and functional scales as well as a clinical examination. A custom force transducer was used to establish the maximum passive range of motion of first metatarsal dorsiflexion at 40 N of force. Foot kinematic data were collected during gait using 3-dimensional motion analysis techniques. RESULTS: Radiographic correction of the flatfoot was achieved in all cases. Despite this, most patients continued to report pain and dysfunction postoperatively. Participants post LCL demonstrated similar passive and active movement of the medial column when we compared the operated and the nonoperated sides. However, participants post LCL demonstrated significantly greater first metatarsal passive range of motion and first metatarsal dorsiflexion during gait than did controls (P < .01 for all pairwise comparisons). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing LCL for correction of stage II adult-acquired flatfoot deformity experience mixed outcomes and similar foot kinematics as the uninvolved limb despite radiographic correction of deformity. These patients maintain a low arch posture similar to their uninvolved limb. The consequence is that first metatarsal movement operates at the end range of dorsiflexion and patients do not obtain full hindfoot inversion at push-off. Longitudinal data are necessary to make a more valid comparison of the effects of surgical correction measured using radiographs and dynamic foot posture during gait. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, comparative series.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".